Karnataka High Court
M/S. Krishi Infratech vs The Union Of India on 30 November, 2020
Author: S R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.124 OF 2019
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 202 OF 2019
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 203 OF 2019
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 14 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 15 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 16 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 17 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 18 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 19 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 91 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 93 OF 2020
C/W
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.421/2019
IN CMP No. 124/2019
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
N. KUMAR.
...PETITIONER
2
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONSTRUCTION)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/WEST/CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/ CONSTRUCTION/CENTRAL
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74287/A/02/18 DATED: 31.01.2018 VIDE
CLAUSE (22) INCONSONANCE WITH ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1996 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 202/2019
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
N. KUMAR. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
3
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 023.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONSTRUCTION)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/WEST/CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/ CONSTRUCTION/CENTRAL
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) R/W 12(5)
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING
TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74284/A/162/VIII/2017 DATED: 09.08.2017
CLAUSE 64 VIDE ANNEXURE-B INCONSONANCE WITH
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 203/2019
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
N. KUMAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
4
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 023.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONSTRUCTION)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/WEST/CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/ CONSTRUCTION/CENTRAL
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) R/W 12(5)
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING
TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74285/A/163/VIII/2017 DATED: 09.08.2017
CLAUSE 64 VIDE ANNEXURE-B INCONSONANCE WITH
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 14/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
5
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 028.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74087/A/33/IVI/2016 DATED: 29.04.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 15/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
6
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 028.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74115/A/58/IVI/2016 DATED: 28.06.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 16/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
7
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 009.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74125/A/64/IVII/2016 DATED: 19.07.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 17/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
8
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 009.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74072/A/30/IV/2016 DATED: 27.04.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 18/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 560 009.
9
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74174/A/90/IX/2016 DATED: 27.10.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 19/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
M.SURYA NARAYANA REDDY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
10
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI -
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONST.)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/EAST/CONST.
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V.ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/74106/A/64/IVII/2016 DATED: 28.04.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 91/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
N. KUMAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
11
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 580 020.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONSTRUCTION)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/WEST/CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/ BRIDGES/CONSTRUCTION/
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) AND 12(5)
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING
TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/73981/A/49/IX/2015 DATED: 16.09.2015
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE 64 OF THE GENERAL
CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AT ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AN DPROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN CMP No. 93/2020
BETWEEN:
M/S. KRISHI INFRATECH
NO.19, 4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
B.S.K. 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
N. KUMAR.
12
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASAD RAO, FOR
SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 580 020.
2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER( CONSTRUCTION)
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
# 18 MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/WEST/CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER/ CONSTRUCTION/CENTRAL
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
NO.18, MILLERS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ABHINAY.Y.T, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) AND 12(5)
OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING
TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. CAO/CN/BNC/73875/A/21/V/2015 DATED: 11.05.2015
(ANNEXURE-B) AS PER CLAUSE 64 OF THE GENERAL
CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AT ANNEXURE-C IN CONSONANCE
WITH ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND PASS
SUCH FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT AN DPROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
13
IN CMP No. 421/2019
BETWEEN:
M/S GLOBAL AGENCY
NO.172, 1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK
BSK 3RD STAGE, 3RD PHAS
BANGALORE - 560 085.
REP. BY SRI.C. SATHISH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASUDEVA NAIDU.S. ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
GADAG ROAD,HUBLI - 580 023.
2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
BANGALORE DIVISION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
BANGALORE - 560 023.
3. THE DIVISIONAL ENVIORMENT & HOUSE KEEPING MANGER
BANGALORE DIVISION
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
BANGALORE - 560 023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ABHINAY.Y.T, ADVOCATE)
THIS C.M.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO
APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES
AND OUTSTANDING ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Agreement BEARING
NO. B/ENHM/YPR/CLNG/2017-2018/01 DATED: 06.04.2017 2015
(ANNEXURE-B) INCONSONANCE WITH ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION (AMEND) ACT, 1996 CLAUSE 63,64 AND 64(7) OF
GCC IN THE INTERET OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
14
ORDER
In all these petitions filed by the common petitioner- M/s. Krishi Infratech against the common respondents- South Western Railways, the petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and respondents in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract.
2. The details of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and respondents and arbitration notices issued by the petitioner to the respondents in the petitions are as follows:
Case Number Date of Date of
Agreement arbitration notice
CMP No.124/2019 31.01.2018 12.11.2018
CMP No.202/2019 09.08.2017 18.02.2019
CMP No.203/2019 09.08.2017 18.02.2019
CMP No.14/2020 29.04.2016 03.08.2019
CMP No.15/2020 28.06.2016 03.07.2019
CMP No.16/2020 19.07.2016 05.07.2019
CMP No.17/2020 27.04.2016 26.06.2019
CMP No.18/2020 27.10.2016 03.07.2019
CMP No.19/2020 28.04.2016 05.07.2019
CMP No.93/2020 11.05.2015 17.06.2019
CMP No.91/2020 16.09.2015 11.05.2019
15
CMP No.421/2019 06.04.2017 10.06.2019
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite existence of an arbitration Agreement in Clause No.64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and issuance of arbitration notices by the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps to constitute an arbitral tribunal and as such, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents in addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the Statement of Objections, submits that there is no merit in any of the claims put forth in the petitions and that the same are liable to be rejected. Alternatively, it is submitted that undisputedly the present petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Act not under either Sections 11(4) or 11(5) of the Act. In this context, learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the omission and inaction on the part of the respondents to comply with the request made by the petitioner in the Arbitration notices referred to supra for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) of 16 the General Conditions of the Contract, it is necessary to refer the dispute to Arbitration only in terms of the said Clause 64(3)(b) and not by appointing an independent Arbitrator dehors and without reference to the said clause. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the petitions and that the same are liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions:
i. Central Organisation for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV)
- 2019 SCC Online SC 1635.
ii. Union of India Vs. Parmar Construction Company - AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 5522.
iii. Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pradeep Vinod Construction Company and Ors. - (2020) 2 SCC 464.
iv. ACE Pipeline Contracts (P) Ltd. Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd - (2007) 5 SCC 304. v. Sp Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh And Another - (2019) 2 SCC 488.17
vi. Voestalpine Schienen GmbH Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. - (2017) 4 SCC 665.
5. Insofar as the various contentions/defences urged on behalf of the respondents with regard to the merits of the claims of the petitioner is concerned, having regard to the limited/restricted scope of Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that the scope of adjudication in the present petition is restricted, limited and confined to examination of the existence of an Arbitration Agreement/Clause only, I am of the view that in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of MAYAVATI TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRADYUAT DEB BURMAN - (2019) 8 SCC 714 and UTTARAKHAND PURV SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD., VS. NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. passed in SLP(C).11476/2018 on 27.11.2019, coupled with the undisputed fact that Clause 64(3)(b) constitutes an Arbitration Agreement, it is necessary that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents requires to be referred to Arbitration by leaving open all other issues to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
18
6. Insofar as appointment of Arbitrator in terms of Clause 64(3)(b) is concerned, ordinarily and under normal circumstances, this Court would have directed reference of the dispute between the parties to Arbitration in terms of the said Clause. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, it would be just and appropriate to refer the dispute to Arbitration to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by respondent No.1 - General Manager of the South Western Railways, who is authorised under Clause 64(3)(b) to constitute a three member Tribunal. In other words, instead of referring the dispute to a three member Tribunal, in the interest of justice, as well as in the interest of both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that referring the dispute to a Sole Arbitrator would meet the ends of justice for the following reasons:
i. The petitioner in all the petitions is one and the same i.e., Krishi Infotech. ii. The respondents in all the petitions are one and the same i.e., South Western Railways.19
iii. All the Agreements containing the Arbitration Clause 64(3)(b) are executed between the same petitioner and the respondents.
iv. The nature and character of claims put forth by the petitioner in all the petitions are largely and to a great extent identical and similar.
v. Appointment of three member Arbitral Tribunals for all the cases would involve huge expenditure and financial burden for not only the petitioner but also the respondents/South Western Railways, particularly, during the present times of financial hardship due to Covid-19 pandemic exigency.
vi. Reference of all the cases to Sole Arbitrator would clearly save a great amount of time, effort and money for all stake holders including the petitioner and the respondents.20
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having regard to the peculiar and special circumstances obtaining in the instant case, it would be just and proper to refer the dispute in all the petitions to a common Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by respondent No.1 - General Manager, as provided in Clause No.64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of the Contract. In this context, it is necessary to state that this departure from the procedure prescribed in Clause 64(3)(b) for the purpose of appointment of Sole Arbitrator is being done, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the instant case and the same is not to be construed as being in any way inconsistent, contrary or contradictory to the decisions of the Apex Court in this regard nor should this order be treated or construed as a precedent for the purpose of constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal as provided under Clause 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER i. All the petitions are hereby allowed. 21 ii. Respondent No.1-General Manager of South Western Railways is hereby directed to appoint Sole Arbitrator from the panel of Arbitrators maintained by the respondents to enter upon reference for the purpose of resolution of dispute between the parties. iii. Respondent No.1 - General Manager, South Western Railways is directed to take steps to appoint Sole Arbitrator as stated supra, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv. All claims and contentions of any of the parties including jurisdiction, limitation, etc., are left/kept open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.
v. Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same 22 vi. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the respondents forthwith to enable immediate action in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bmc/-