Bangalore District Court
Shri M. Srinivasalu vs Smt. Snehalatha Singhi on 30 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH84]
:Present:
Sri N.Sunil Kumar Singh, B.Com., LL.B.,
LXXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated on this the 30th day of September 2020
COM.A.S.No.154/2018
Plaintiff Shri M. Srinivasalu
S/o Sri. Venkataswamy,
No.2/5, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross,
Off South End Street,
Kumara Park East,
Bangalore560001.
[By Sri. C.D, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
Defendant: Smt. Snehalatha Singhi
W/o Sri Dinesh Singhi,
No.101, 1st Floor, Pride Elite,
10, Museum Road,
Bangalore560001.
(By Sri.A.A.R.N, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 20/07/2018
Nature of the suit : Arbitration Suit
Date of commencement of:
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment: 30/09/2020
was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
02 02 10
2
CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendant U/S.34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is specialized and involved in conducting mining operations in Karnataka State. During the course of carrying on mining activities, the plaintiff has applied to carry on mining activities in 134 hectors of land situated at Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and applied to grant such permission before government and in pursuance of the said application the government has granted mining lease to the plaintiff in registered ML No.2552 authorizing the plaintiff to conduct mining operations in 134 hectors of land in Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The plaintiff has also obtained permission under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to carrying on such mining activities under lease sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka. The Central Government has granted approval U/S.5(1) of the MMDR Act to the plaintiff to carry on such mining activities and state government has issued notification in this regard.
3. The respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant in Bellary District and approached plaintiff stating that she will conduct mining operations and extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold property measuring 3 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc 134 hectors of Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. After deliberation and discussion with plaintiff, the defendant agreed to carry on mining activities as raising contractor and an agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. As per the conditions stipulated in the said agreement the defendant is required to raise iron ore mineral and process the same and suppy to the plaintiff and for the said activities of the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to pay sum of Rs.240/ per MT for the purpose of raising such iron ore mineral, process, transporting and supplying iron ore mineral to the plaintiff. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that duration of the agreement shall be 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred into the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and others as partners. It is also agreed between plaintiff and defendant that the entire iron ore mineral process shall be delivered to the plaintiff as lessee and the defendant shall be responsible for safe custody and supply of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff.
4. Due to the above said understanding as per the terms of agreement between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant herein requested the plaintiff to permit her husband Sri. Dinesh Singhi who is also one of the partner of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals to apply for Mineral Despatch Permits, Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transportation 4 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff. To the said process the signature of plaintiff is required and the plaintiff has agreed to provide signature for applying Mineral Despatch Permits and Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transporting iron ore mineral extracted by the defendant. When the defendant is carrying on work in terms of the said agreement there was a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to actual quantity of iron ore extracted by the defendant. The plaintiff contended that on account of illhealth he could not able to look into the activities of the defendant and defendant with the help of one Narasimhulu and Rajagopal who are the employees of defendant herein have extracted 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore. But disclosed in the annual returns filed by them before the authority as iron ore extract was 4,34,674 MTs. This fact is detected by the plaintiff through reliable sources and put forth his grievance before the defendant stating that 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore was transported to BMM Ispat Limited in which the husband of the defendant Dinesh Singhi was the director. But the defendant has contended that she has actually extracted 4,33,076.91 MTs of iron ore from the leasehold land of the plaintiff and not 6,84,674 MTs as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus there is a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to quantum of iron ore extracted during the relevant period and transported.
5CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc
5. Due to the said dispute as per arbitration clause in the agreement the sole Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff has putforth his claim before the sole Arbitrator stating that on the agreement of lease dated 1/1/2008 the defendant has extracted iron ore from the leasehold land granted to him by the government as detailed below:
Period Quantity of mineral
removed
July 2009 68,459
August 2009 1,07,982
September 2009 98,994
October 2009 48,104
November 2009 90,151
December 2009 80,790
January 2010 1,32,972
February 2010 57,222
TOTAL 6,84,674
6. It is also contended by the plaintiff before sole Arbitrator that as per the Annual Report filed before Regional Controller of Mines of Indian Bureau the actual quantity of iron ore extracted by the plaintiff discloses 6,84,674 MTs. But the defendant shown iron ore extracted as 4,34,674 MTs and there is difference of 2,50,000 MTs and the Income Tax Authority after getting the report filed by defendant as per the Annual Report before Regional Controller of Mines of Indian Bureau conducted search and seizure of premises of plaintiff 6 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc and Income Tax Authorities have ascertained actual iron ore extracted by defendant and Income Tax Department confirmed the total quantity of iron ore extracted and transported by defendant as 6,84,674 MTs during July 2009 to February 2010. Thus plaintiff claimed Rs.4.26 crores as value of such iron ore extracted by defendant. After providing opportunity to both the sides the sole Arbitrator by recording evidence of both the sides and after hearing both the sides passed an award in AC 15/2017 dated 2/6/2018 dismissing the claim of plaintiff herein on the ground that the claim of plaintiff is time barred and also rejected the counter claim of defendant herein as time barred and directed both the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Aggrieved by the said arbitration award, the plaintiff herein has filed present suit on the following grounds. The award passed by the Arbitrator is illegal and without the authority of law and it is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by plaintiff that the award passed by sole Arbitrator is contrary to the material evidence available on record and arbitrator has ignored the binding contract between parties and interpreted the provision of contract beyond the contractual obligations mentioned in the agreement. The learned Arbitrator failed to consider that there is no evidence lead by defendant herein despite of that applied Article 3 of the Limitation Act to hold the claim of plaintiff as barred by law of limitation which was arbitrary 7 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc and not sustainable. The learned Arbitrator failed to consider the burden of proof of limitation lies on defendant herein which is not proved or established before the sole Arbitrator by the defendant. The finding of the sole Arbitrator are in contravention with fundamental policy of Indian law and it is conflict with the morality and justice. The finding of the Arbitrator with regard to limitation is completely illegal and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The learned Arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence and documents of both the sides in the right prospective. Since the award passed by the Arbitrator is opposed to the public policy as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. Thus it is prayed to set aside the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator and prayed to allow claim statement submitted by plaintiff before the Arbitrator.
8. The brief averments of written objections and statement filed by defendant that the plaint averments are false and incorrect and plaintiff has not made out any grounds as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act to interfere with the well reasoned award passed by the sole Arbitrator and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the sole Arbitrator has passed an award on 2/6/2018 in AC 15/2017 in accordance with law considering all the relevant facts and circumstances and dismissed the claim of plaintiff as barred by law of limitation. Thus the question of declining the award passed by 8 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc sole Arbitrator does not arise at all. It is also contended by defendant that the claim of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, since the claim of plaintiff pertains to the period from July 2009 to February 2010 and plaintiff fully aware of the quantum of iron ore extracted by defendant at the relevant point of time and plaintiff ought to have preferred the claim way back in the year 2012 when the claimant has issued notice to the defendant on 20/11/2012 and now the claim putforth before the sole Arbitrator by the plaintiff is deserves to be dismissed as barred by law of limitation which is rightly appreciated and rejected by the sole Arbitrator in his award which is not opposed to the public policy of India as provided U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. It is also contended by the defendant that there is no cause of action to putforth the claim as per the terms of agreement dated 1/1/2008. It is also contended that the agreement itself is insufficiently stamped and in the arbitration proceeding M/s. BMM Ispat Limited has not impleaded. Hence claim of the plaintiff against defendant is liable to be dismissed as the proper and necessary parties are not impleaded in the arbitration proceeding. When the arbitrator has considered the legal aspects and rejected the claim of plaintiff as barred by law of limitation the question of setting aside the arbitral award do not arise at all. There is no sufficient grounds putforth by the plaintiff to set aside the award passed by the sole Arbitrator. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
9CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc
9. Heard arguments of both the sides.
10. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to set aside the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 2/6/2018 in AC 15/2017 U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996?
2. What order?
11. My answer to the above points are as follows:
POINT No.1 : Negative.
POINT No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT No.1 : The facts of plaintiff's case is that plaintiff is specialized and involved in conducting mining operations in Karnataka State. During the course of carrying on mining activities, the plaintiff has applied to carry on mining activities in 134 hectors of land situated at Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and applied to grant such permission before government and in pursuance of the said application the government has granted mining lease to the plaintiff in registered ML No.2552 authorizing the plaintiff to conduct mining operations in 134 hectors of land in Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The plaintiff has also obtained permission under the provisions of 10 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to carrying on such mining activities under lease sanctioned by the Government of Karnataka. The Central Government has granted approval U/S.5(1) of the MMDR Act to the plaintiff to carry on such mining activities and state government has issued notification in this regard.
13. The respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant in Bellary District and approached plaintiff stating that she will conduct mining operations and extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold property measuring 134 hectors of Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. After deliberation and discussion with plaintiff, the defendant agreed to carry on mining activities as raising contractor and an agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. As per the conditions stipulated in the said agreement the defendant is required to raise iron ore mineral and process the same and supply to the plaintiff and for the said activities of the defendant, the plaintiff has agreed to pay sum of Rs.240/ per MT for the purpose of raising such iron ore mineral, process, transporting and supplying iron ore mineral to the plaintiff. As per the terms of agreement the plaintiff and defendant have agreed that duration of the agreement shall be 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred into the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and others as partners. It is also agreed between plaintiff and defendant 11 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc that the entire iron ore mineral process shall be delivered to the plaintiff as lessee and the defendant shall be responsible for safe custody and supply of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff.
14. Due to the above said understanding as per the terms of agreement between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant herein requested the plaintiff to permit her husband Sri. Dinesh Singhi who is also one of the partner of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals to apply for Mineral Despatch Permits, Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transportation of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of the plaintiff. To the said process the signature of plaintiff is required and the plaintiff has agreed to provide signature for applying Mineral Despatch Permits and Forest Transit Pass for the purpose of transporting iron ore mineral extracted by the defendant. When the defendant is carrying on work in terms of the said agreement there was a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to actual quantity of iron ore extracted by the defendant. The plaintiff contended that on account of illhealth he could not able to look into the activities of the defendant and defendant with the help of one Narasimhulu and Rajagopal who are the employees of defendant herein have extracted 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore. But disclosed in the annual returns filed by them before the authority as iron ore extract was 4,34,674 MTs. This fact is detected by the plaintiff through reliable sources and 12 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc putforth his grievance before the defendant stating that 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore was transported to BMM Ispat Limited in which the husband of the defendant Dinesh Singhi was the director. But the defendant has contended that she has actually extracted 4,33,076.91 MTs of iron ore from the leasehold land of the plaintiff and not 6,84,674 MTs as claimed by the plaintiff. Thus there is a dispute arisen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to quantum of iron ore extracted during the relevant period and transported.
15. Due to the said dispute as per arbitration clause in the agreement the sole Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute between plaintiff and defendant and plaintiff has putforth his claim before the sole Arbitrator stating that on the agreement of lease dated 1/1/2008 the defendant has extracted iron ore from the leasehold land granted to him by the government as detailed below:
Period Quantity of mineral
removed
July 2009 68,459
August 2009 1,07,982
September 2009 98,994
October 2009 48,104
November 2009 90,151
December 2009 80,790
January 2010 1,32,972
February 2010 57,222
TOTAL 6,84,674
13
CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc
16. It is also contended by the plaintiff before sole Arbitrator that as per the Annual Report filed before Regional Controller of Mines of Indian Bureau the actual quantity of iron ore extracted by the plaintiff discloses 6,84,674 MTs. But the defendant shown iron ore extracted as 4,34,674 MTs and there is difference of 2,50,000 MTs and the Income Tax Authority after getting the report filed by defendant as per the Annual Report before Regional Controller of Mines of Indian Bureau conducted search and seizure of premises of plaintiff and Income Tax Authorities have ascertained actual iron ore extracted by defendant and Income Tax Department confirmed the total quantity of iron ore extracted and transported by defendant as 6,84,674 MTs during July 2009 to February 2010. Thus plaintiff claimed Rs.4.26 crores as value of such iron ore extracted by defendant. After providing opportunity to both the sides the sole Arbitrator by recording evidence of both the sides and after hearing both the sides passed an award in AC 15/2017 dated 2/6/2018 dismissing the claim of plaintiff. Thus the present suit is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the arbitration award passed by the sole Arbitrator.
17. On hearing both the sides and on going through the arbitral award passed by the sole Arbitrator and the copies of documents produced, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is specialized and involved in conducting mining operations in 14 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc Karnataka State and also carrying on mining activities. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was granted mining lease of 134 hectors of land at Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District by Government of Karnataka and issued lease under ML No.2552. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has obtained permission under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to carry on such mining activities in the leasehold land. It is also not in dispute that the Central Government has granted approval U/S.5(1) of MMDR Act to the plaintiff to carry on mining activities in the leasehold land granted by Government of Karnataka. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is Director of BMM Ispat Limited having plant at Bellary and approached plaintiff for carrying on mining activities in 134 hectors of land in Donimalai Range, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District and as per the discussion agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 1/1/2008. It is also not in dispute that as per the terms of the contract and conditions stipulated therein the defendant has to extract iron ore mineral from the leasehold land and shall process the same and supply iron ore mineral to plaintiff at the agreed rate of Rs.240/ per MT. It is also not in dispute that as per the contract the defendant has right to carry on mining activities for 20 years or till the mining lease is transferred in the name of Shree Gavisiddeswara Minerals which is a partnership firm consisting of plaintiff and other partners. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has carried on the 15 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc mining activities in the leasehold land of plaintiff till 2010. But there was dispute arosen between plaintiff and defendant with regard to quantity of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land. It is contended by plaintiff that on account of illhealth of plaintiff he could not able to look into the activities of defendant and taking advantage of the same, the defendant with the help of one Narasimhalu and Rajagopal who are the employees of defendant extracted 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore from July 2009 to February 2010 as detailed below:
Period Quantity of mineral
removed
July 2009 68,459
August 2009 1,07,982
September 2009 98,994
October 2009 48,104
November 2009 90,151
December 2009 80,790
January 2010 1,32,972
February 2010 57,222
TOTAL 6,84,674
18. It is also contended by plaintiff that while disclosing iron ore extracted in the Annual Returns before statutory authority the defendant has mentioned as 4,34,674 MTs was extracted instead of showing 6,84,674 MTs. This fact is 16 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc detected by plaintiff through reliable sources and putforth his grievance before the defendant stating that 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore was transported to BMM Ispat Limited by the husband of defendant Dinesh Singhi who was director of the said company. But defendant has contended that she has actually extracted 4,33,076.91 MTs of iron ore from the leasehold land. Due to such dispute between parties to the suit, matter was referred to sole Arbitrator who has called for explanation on both the sides and after adducing evidence and hearing arguments of both the sides passed an award in AC No.15/2017 dated 2/6/2018 contending that the claim of plaintiff herein is barred by law of limitation and counter claim putforth by plaintiff herein before the sole Arbitrator was also rejected.
19. On going through the award passed by sole Arbitrator, the sole Arbitrator has taken into consideration all the relevant documents and evidence on record of both the sides and by considering the same held that "as per Article 3 of Limitation Act when the agency of the defendant herein with the plaintiff came to an end on 1/2/2010 which is not in dispute between plaintiff and defendant herein the time began to run towards said date on 1/2/2010 and plaintiff herein should have instituted suit or arbitration proceeding as the case may be before expiry of 3 years 7/12/2010." It is also held that in the present case on hand the arbitration proceeding was initiated by plaintiff by issuing legal notice 17 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc dated 7/1/2016. Thus after almost 6 years lapsed the claim made by plaintiff is barred by limitation. The Arbitrator has considered various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts of India and came to the conclusion that as per Article 3 of Limitation Act the claim of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation which cannot be held as opposed to the public policy or exceeded the limits of Arbitrator in passing such award.
20. It is the claim of plaintiff that defendant has wrongly transported 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore without accounting the same and submitted false annual returns to the statutory authority. But on going through the documents of both the sides, it is not in dispute that the "raising contract" was terminated on 1/2/2010 by plaintiff and the alleged transportation of iron ore was taken place before 1/2/2010. Thus from the date of such termination of raising contract the claim should have been made by plaintiff against defendant on or before 1/2/2013. But arbitration notice was issued by plaintiff on 7/1/2016 and limitation mentioned in Article 3 was lapsed on the date of issuance of such arbitration notice by plaintiff to the defendant. The Arbitrator has taken into account Article 91 of Limitation Act also and given proper reasoning stating that "assuming that the defendant wrongfully withheld 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore extracted from the leasehold land of plaintiff and not accounted for. But the limitation period under Article 91 will 18 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc began to run when the property is wrongfully taken or detained by defendant. The materials on record discloses that the claimant has issued legal notice on 20/11/2012 to the husband of defendant herein stating that there was illegal transportation of 2,50,000 MTs of iron ore during the period 20092010 and demanded Rs.4.26 crores consideration towards the value of the said quantity of iron ore. Therefore the question of plaintiff become aware of wrongful detaining of iron ore in February 2013 does not arise when as per notice the plaintiff has aware of the said fact on 20/11/2012 itself." If the limitation reckoned from the said date of issuance of arbitration notice on 7/1/2016 again after lapse of period of limitation 3 years the said claim is putforth by plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as per Article 91 of Limitation Act also. All these aspects have been elaborately considered by the learned Arbitrator and even though the plaintiff contended that the notice dated 20/11/2012 is ignored by the Arbitrator by issuing of such notice the limitation prescribed under Article 3 or Article 91 of Limitation Act will not save the plaintiff to putforth his claim. Thus the Arbitrator has considered all the relevant aspects with regard to the limitation in claiming the relief by plaintiff before the Arbitrator. As per various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts of India the Arbitrator has held that in the case on hand Article 3 of Limitation Act is applicable and as on the arbitration notice issued after expiry of 3 years from the date of termination of agreement 19 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc on 1/2/2010 the claim of plaintiff is clearly barred by law of limitation. It is also held by the Arbitrator that even Article 91 of Limitation Act is applied then also on admitted facts the claim of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and also Article 113 of Limitation Act bars the claim of plaintiff in the present proceeding after expiry of 3 years. The discussion made by the Arbitrator clearly discloses that the claim of plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and it cannot be entertained.
21. On going through the arbitration award on the merits also the discussion has been made with regard to the documents and evidence of both the sides and claim of plaintiff was rejected on the ground that the invoices raised by defendant do not disclose the total quantity of iron ore extracted and it do not disclose 6,84,674 MTs of iron ore was extracted by defendant at the relevant point of time. In this regard the learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon decisions reported in AIR 1928 Oudh 47(1) which is the case of Kalicharan and another v/s. Ganeshi Lal, AIR 1958 Calcutta 433 which is the case of the State of West Bengal v/s. Chandi Charan Das, AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 41 which is the case of Akkipeddi Gopalasastry v/s. Vijayawada Engineering Metal Company Limited, AIR 1972 Rajasthan 247 which is the case of Phool Chand and others v/s. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1974 Allahabad 408 which is the case of Smt. Sukhdei and others v/s. M/s. Naipal 20 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc Ram Jagannath prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 705 which is the case of Oil & national Gas Corporation Limited v/s. Saw Pipes Limited, (2009) 12 SCC 1 which is the case of State of Rajasthan and another v/s. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited, (2015) 3 SCC 49 which is the case of Associate Builders v/s. Delhi Development Authority, (2019) 7 SCC 236 which is the case of Parsa Kente Collieries Limited v/s. Rajasthan Raja Vidyut Utpadan. I have gone through the principles laid down in the said decisions which are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case. Since the claim of plaintiff was rejected by the sole Arbitrator on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Article 3, Article 91 and Article 113 of Limitation Act, the rejection of claim of plaintiff by the sole Arbitrator on the basis of evidence and documents produced by both the plaintiff and defendant cannot be held as opposed to the public policy or exceeded the limits of the Arbitrator as prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. While arguing the learned counsel for defendant relied upon decisions reported in (1981) 1 SCC 80 which is the case of Ramji Dayawala and Sons Private Limited v/s. Invest Import, ILR 1982 KAR 446 which is the case of M.K.Anjaneyaswamy Mudaliar v/s. C. Narayanaswamy, 2006(12) SCC 552 which is the case of Avtar Singh and others v/s. Gurdial Singh and others, 2014(2) SCC 269 21 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc which is the case of Union of India and others v/s. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others, ILR 1987 KAR 2552 which is the case of Union of India v/s. Karnataka Electricity Board, 1997(7) SCC 556 which is the case of P.K.Ramachandran v/s. State of Kerala and another, 1973(3) SCC 524 which is the case of P.D.Jambekar v/s. State of Gujarat, AIR 1960 PAT 223 = 1959 SCC Online PAT 45 which is the case of Devji Shivji v/s. Mohanlal Odhabji Thacker and others, (1962) 3 SCR 702 : AIR 1962 SC 406 which is the case of Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere v/s. Madhav Prabhakar Oak and another, 2010 (1) SCC 72 which is the case of N. Radhakrishnan v/s. Maestro Engineers and others, 2006(13) SCC 470 which is the case of Sankar Dastidar v/s. Banjula Dastidar (MST) and another, AIR 1962 MAD 171 which is the case of N.S.K.L. Kulandayan Chettiar v/s. A.R.RM.oMAYAL Achi and another, AIR 1937 ALL 363 which is the case of Hingu Lal v/s. Sarju Prasad, AIR 1938 Madras 38 which is the case of V.N.Subramania Iyer v/s. V.N.Subramania Iyer, 2002(2) SCC 388 which is the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v/s. Rani Construction Pvt. Ltd., (2015) 3 SCC 49 which is the case of Associate Builders v/s. Delhi Development Authority, 2018 SCC Online Delhi 12918 which is the case of Wishwa Mittar Bajaj and Sons v/s. Shipra Esate Likited 22 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc and Jaikishan Estates Developers Private Limited, 2018(1) SCC 656 which is the case of Venture Global Engineering LLC v/s. Tech Mahindra Limited and another, 2008(2) ARB L.R 271 which is the case of M.K.Chitkara v/s. Union of India, AIR 1993 Del 230 which is the case of M/s. R.S.Avtar Singh & Co., v/s.
M/s. N.P.C.C.Limited. I have gone through the principles laid down in the said decisions which are already discussed by the sole Arbitrator with regard to limitation. But other reported decisions relied upon by defendant with regard to admitted fact need not be proved and parties approached the court should prove the case on their own on the basis of lapse of other side they cannot rely and other aspects are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case. It is admitted fact that arbitral award can be set aside only on the grounds specified U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act and this court cannot examine the legality of award passed by the sole Arbitrator. If the finding given thereunder is not opposed to the public policy or exceeded the limits of the Arbitrator while passing such award as prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act. On perusal of Arbitral Award there is no such patent irregularity or opposed to the justice or morality and award passed is unfair or unreasonable as contended by the plaintiff.
23CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc
22. In view of the above said discussions, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not at all made out any cogent case that the impugned Arbitral Award is opposed to the public policy and Arbitrator has exceeded his limits in passing such award. Further the plaintiff has not at all made out any cogent grounds to set aside the Arbitral Award and no grounds made out to show that the learned Arbitrator is perverse, unfair and unreasonable in passing such award. The plaintiff has utterly failed to prove and establish that award passed by the sole Arbitrator falls within any of the provisions prescribed U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. On the other hand in arguments of defendant's side and materials placed before this court it clearly discloses that the defendant is also not entitled for the counter claim which is putforth before the sole Arbitrator. Thus the present suit is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I hold point No.1 as negative.
23. POINT No.2 : In view of my discussion on point No.1 above, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is hereby dismissed.
In view of the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.24
CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer; transcript thereof corrected, initialed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 30th day of September 2020] [N. Sunil Kumar Singh] LXXXIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
25 CT 1390_Com.A.S.1542018_Judgment .doc Order pronounced in open court Vide separate judgment ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff U/S.34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 is hereby dismissed.
In view of the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
LXXXIII Addl. C.C. & S.J, Bengaluru