Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs M/S. Sri Bala Gopal Construction Ltd.. on 21 January, 2021
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. 61296131 of 2011
Union of India & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
M/s Sri Bala Gopal Construction Ltd. …Respondent
ORDER
1. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
2. These appeals, by way of special leave, are directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CMP Nos. 62 of 2008, 63 of 2008 and 64 of 2008 whereby the High Court appointed one retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties by allowing the CMPs filed by the respondent herein.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Allegedly, Respondent no.1 herein was earlier known in the name of M/s. Shree Jagannath Constructions Ltd. In the year 1999 and 2000, the appellants entered into three agreements with M/s. Shree Jagannath Constructions Ltd Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by for executing earthwork in widening of existing embankment, forming SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2021.02.15 17:54:14 IST Reason: trolley refuges, side drains, construction of retaining walls etc. 1 Although, the work was to be completed within a period of eight months, the same was extended up to 2003. Since the appellants failed to make payments, M/s. Shree Jagannath Constructions Ltd sought for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal as per the relevant clauses of the General Conditions of the Contract vide letter dated 18.12.2007. As the appellants failed to constitute the tribunal, respondent approached the High Court by filing three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions pertaining to three different agreements, under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of sole arbitrator for the resolution of the disputes. It is pertinent to note that, in the meantime M/s. Shree Jagannath Constructions Ltd was renamed as M/s. Sri Bala Gopal Construction Limited i.e., the Respondent herein.
4. The High Court vide impugned order dated 21.04.2009 allowed the petitions preferred by the respondent and appointed a retired High Court Judge as the sole arbitrator.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by means of Special Leave Petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that, the High Court failed to appreciate that, the party seeking appointment of arbitrator was not a party to the original agreement. Further, the 2 appellants submitted that, even if there exists a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, the claims are timebarred as the first claim was made by the respondent in 2007, i.e., four years after the last extension.
7. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the decision of the High Court and contended that Clauses 63 and 64 of General Conditions of Contract deal with resolution of disputes through arbitration. When the appellants failed to make the payments, the respondent was compelled to invoke Clause 64 of the GCC. The respondent also submitted that mere change of name of the company from 'M/s Shree Jagannath Constructions Limited' to 'Sri Bala Gopal Construction Limited’, will not absolve the parties from their liabilities. Thus, the contentions of the appellants that there was no privity of contract between this respondent and appellants cannot be sustained.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the material placed on record, it is apparent that, the appellants have failed to produce any material to show any infirmity in the impugned order. Considering the long pendency of the dispute since 2007 and the fact that, the proceedings before the tribunal had commenced way back in 2010, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order 3 passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to raise all issues before the arbitrator.
10. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeals, the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2011 shall stand vacated.
………………………., J.
(N.V. RAMANA) ………………………., J.
(SURYA KANT) ………………………., J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 21, 2021
4
ITEM NO.104 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) 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
Civil Appeal No(s).6129-6131/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. SRI BALA GOPAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.. Respondent(s)
Date : 21-01-2021 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. J.K. Sud, ASG Mr. Prashant Singh B., Adv.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Priya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR (NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. However, the parties are at liberty to raise all issues before the arbitrator.
As a sequel to dismissal of the appeals, the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2011 shall stand vacated.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
6