Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Tecpro Systems Limited vs Bgr Energy Systems Limited on 2 January, 2023

Author: Krishnan Ramasamy

Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy

                                                                      Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED : 02.01.2023

                                                     CORAM

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

                                     Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022

                Tecpro Systems Limited,
                (Under Liquidation),
                Through its Liquidator,
                Unit 2, First Floor, No. 25,
                1st Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
                Adyar, Chennai,
                Tamil Nadu – 600 020.                                                                   ...
                Petitioner

                                                       Vs.

                BGR Energy Systems Limited,
                Plot No. 838, Vivekananda Nagar Colony,
                Ukatpally,
                Hyderabad,
                Telangana – 500 072.                                                                    ...
                Respondents

                PRAYER: This Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
                and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to allow this application and appoint a Sole
                Arbitrator, in terms of the WO. No. GIX/PPD/082/22, PO. No. 350000085, PO.
                No.       3500000174,   PO.    No.   3500000406,      PO.      No.      3500000451,
                PO. No. 330001059, PO. No. 3300001294, PO. No. 3500000868, SO No.
                3300002018, PO No. 3500001256, SO No. 3300002824, SO No. 3300003031
                to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in relation to the disputes that has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/6
                                                                         Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022


                arisen.
                                  For Petitioner   :     Mr. Bhagavath Krishnan PMN

                                  For Respondent   :     No appearance

                                                       ORDER

The present petition has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. After the filing of this petition, notice had been ordered to the respondent and despite service of notice and printing the name of the respondent, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. It clearly shows that the respondent is not interest in contesting the matter. Therefore, this Court proceeded to decide the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is representing the Liquidator of the petitioner/Company. During the course of the business, the petitioner/Company had executed contracts for about Rs. 125,87,00,000/- under six projects of the respondent. The respondent has also issued 16 purchase orders in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has duly completed the contract and final bills were raised in all contracts for which part payment alone was made by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the commercial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022 operation of the respective projects have also commenced and PG tests were also completed. Despite successful completion of all the projects, the respondent has not come forward to pay the amount due to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30.3797 Crore. He further submits that the present dispute is arbitrable in terms of the clause 8 of the invoices, which reads as follows:-

“8.0.0 Arbitration:
All disputes arising in connection with this P.O, which cannot be settled by mutual negotiation, shall be finally sttled under the rules of Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and as amended from time to time. The venue of the arbitration shall be Chennai.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has proposed the names of the five Hon'ble Retired High Court Judges to the respondent to nominate one among them as Sole Arbitrator by virtue of arbitration notice dated 02.04.2022. Even after receipt of that notice, the respondent has not come forward to nominate anyone. According to the petitioner, the present dispute of the petitioner and the respondent squarely falls within the purview of the dispute that may be referred to arbitration as per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022 clause 21 of the lease agreement. Since the petitioner could not arrive at any consensus with the respondent to appoint a sole arbitrator, he has approached this Court.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the present dispute has arisen out of non-payment of the invoices, this Court feels that the same is arbitrable in terms of clause 8 of the invoice and pass the following order:

i) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Rajeswaran, Former Judge, Madras High Court, residing at No. AA-67, II Street, Near Rountana Nalli Silk House, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040, Contact Nos. 94443 90952 and 93832 12249 is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.
ii) That the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed herein, shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Order.
iii) That the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed herein shall be paid fees and other incidental charges, fixed by him and the same shall be borne by the parties equally. In the event of the respondent not coming forward to appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator, the petitioner shall bear all the charges including the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022 remuneration of the learned Sole Arbitrator and thereafter, reimburse the share of the respondent from it.
iv) That the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed herein shall decide the matter on merits without being influenced or inhibited by any of the observations made in the order of this Court.”

5. This Original Petition is ordered accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since this Court has appointed an Arbitrator, it is open to the petitioner as well as the respondent to seek other reliefs under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Sole Arbitrator.

02.01.2023 vjt Note: Issue order copy on 09.01.2023.

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Copy to Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Rajeswaran, Former Judge, Madras High Court, No. AA-67, II Street, Near Rountana Nalli Silk House, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

vjt Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No. 643 of 2022 02.01.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6