Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Narmada Clean Tech & vs Balaji Fiber Reinforce Pvt. Ltd. & on 23 August, 2017

Author: Mohinder Pal

Bench: Mohinder Pal

                   C/SCA/2209/2017                                                  ORDER




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2209 of 2017


                                                  With
                      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 of 2017
         ==========================================================
                         NARMADA CLEAN TECH & 1....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
                  BALAJI FIBER REINFORCE PVT. LTD. & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR ABHISHEK MEHTA AND
         MS PRABHA PRASAD FOR M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA, ADVOCATE for the
         Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR.CHIRAG K
         SUKHWANI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

                                           Date : 23/08/2017


                                            ORAL ORDER

1. This order will dispose off both the aforementioned petitions which have arisen out of the same dispute and is between the same parties.

2. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing and setting aside order / Minutes of Meeting dated 5.10.2016; wherein, they have been directed to deposit 50% of the amount claimed by the original claimants.

3. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:

HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 24 01:48:24 IST 2017 C/SCA/2209/2017 ORDER 3.1 The petitioners were interested in installation of GRP pipeline of 60 MLD capacity from Jhagadia Pumping Station to Hansot (Package-I, Segment A & B) as well as from Hansot to Landfall point Kantiajal (Pacakage - II, Segment-C) for which tender was floated which resulted into inviting bids.

3.2 Respondent No.1 came to be awarded with the installation of aforementioned work. However, a dispute arose between the parties which seems to have resulted into black-listing of respondent No.1 and invocation of bank guarantee. Respondent No.1 vide Notice dated 22.7.2014 sought for invocation of arbitration proceedings against the petitioners.

3.3 This Court vide its order dated 6.2.2015 in Arbitration Petition No.62 of 2014 preferred by Respondent No.1 was pleased to appoint respondent No.2 as sole arbitrator to conduct the arbitration proceedings.

Arbitration proceedings were adjourned from time to time and are stated to have reached to final stages. During the pendency of such proceedings, petitioners moved an application for adjournment dated 1.10.2016 and requested respondent No.2 to keep the hearing on any day after 2 to 3 weeks in order to enable the petitioners to evaluate and compile the voluminous material / record before the Respondent No.2.

3.4 Learned Arbitrator (Respondent No.2) refused to grant adjournment and the matter was fixed on 5.10.2016. On Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 24 01:48:24 IST 2017 C/SCA/2209/2017 ORDER second request for adjournment in hearing held on 5.10.2016, the respondent No.2 directed the petitioners for deposit of 50% of the amount claimed by Respondent No.1 as a precondition in order to consider the request of the petitioners to entertain the application for revising the claim / counter claim.

4. This Court has heard learned senior counsel, Mr.Mihir Joshi for the petitioners and learned senior counsel, Mr.Saurabh Soparkar for the respondent No.1.

5. During course of arguments before this Court, learned senior counsel, Mr.Saurabh Soparkar, for the respondent No.1 has stated that he has no objection if the clause of depositing 50% of the claimed amount is deleted from the aforementioned order with a prayer that this order should not be used to delay the final decision by the Arbitrator and further this concession is not used in any other proceedings whatsoever including criminal proceedings pending between the parties.

6. Without going into the dispute regarding maintainability of the petition and without making it a precedent for future cases, the impugned order / Minutes of Meeting dated 5.10.2016 is modified to the extent that the petitioners shall move an applications for amendment of counter claim which shall be disposed off by learned Arbitrator as per law and as per provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

7. With aforementioned modification, these petitions Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 24 01:48:24 IST 2017 C/SCA/2209/2017 ORDER stand disposed of.

(MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Aug 24 01:48:24 IST 2017