Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Jsw Steel Limited vs South Western Railway on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia
1
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9462/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-12-2021
in CMP No.100015/2021 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka Circuit
Bench At Dharwad)
JSW STEEL LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.75755/2022 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT; and, IA No.75756/2022 – FOR
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 16-08-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anushka Sharda, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Madhav Khosla, Adv.
M/s. Khaitan & Co., AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG
Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The basic issue involved in the instant matter is whether the appointment of the Arbitrator was in conformity with the law laid Signature Not Verified down by this Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd, Digitally signed by Dr. Mukesh Nasa Date: 2022.08.18 18:41:47 IST Reason: (2017) 8 SCC 377; and, Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760.
2
2. The High Court has gone by the decision rendered by a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification v. ECL-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), A Joint Venture Company, (2020) 14 SCC 712, which decision had distinguished the applicability of TRF Ltd. (supra) and Perkins Eastman Architects DPC (supra) to the fact situation involved therein.
3. It has been brought to our notice that subsequently, a Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Union of India v. M/s. Tantia Constructions Ltd., [SLP (Civil) No.12670 of 2020], vide its order dated 11.01.2021, prima facie expressed its disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra) and requested the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to look into the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra).
4. In the present case, after the appointment of the Arbitrator nominated by the respondent herein, the proceedings took place before the Arbitrator and award was passed on 30.03.2022.
5. The copy of the Award shows that there was no participation on part of the present petitioner. Further, none had stepped into the box on behalf of the respondents in support of its case.
6. We need not, at this stage, go into the correctness of such Award, as those questions are not presently arising for our consideration. It is however, quite clear that the correctness of the decision in Central Organisation For Railway Electrification (supra), based on which the appointment of the Arbitrator was made 3 and the matter had proceeded before the Arbitrator, was doubted by a subsequent Bench of three Judges.
7. In the circumstances, we direct that the papers of the present matter be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench.
8. Since the issue has been re-occurring, we may observe that it would be in the fitness of things that the question is resolved at an early date.
9. Pending such consideration, the effect and operation of the Award dated 30.03.2022 shall remain stayed.
(MUKESH NASA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER