Madras High Court
Phooltas Transrail Ltd vs Larsen & Toubro Limited on 22 July, 2022
Author: M.Sundar
Bench: M.Sundar
Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
PHOOLTAS TRANSRAIL LTD
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Mr.Arjun Prasad singh
Layak Enclave (East) Phulwari Sharif
Patna – 801 506, India. ... Petitioner
Vs
Larsen & Toubro Limited
L&T CONSTRUCTION
Having its Headquarters at
Mount Poonamallee Road
Manapakkam PB No.979
Chennai – 600 089
Registered Office at : L&T House
N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate
Mumbai – 400 001. ... Respondent
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying (a) to appoint an arbitrator on behalf of the
respondent and direct such appointed arbitrator along with the nominee
arbitrator of the petitioner to appoint a Presiding Arbitrator and constitute the
Arbitral Tribunal within 30 days from such appointment by this Hon'ble Court
1/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms
of the arbitration agreement contained in clause 12 of LOI dated 2.12.2016;
(b) to direct the respondent to pay costs and ( c) to grant such further reliefs as
this Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
along with Ms.P.Elakkiya
For Respondent : Ms.Preeti Mohan
along with Ms.Ragha Sudha Ravi
ORDER
This order will now dispose of the captioned Arb.O.P.
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the first listing of captioned Arb.O.P. before this Court, which was on 16.06.2022. This 16.06.2022 proceedings reads as follows :
'Captioned Arb.O.P. has been presented before this Court on 29.04.2022 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity].
2. Mr.P.J.Sriganesh, learned counsel for petitioner who is before this Court submits that the Captioned Arb.O.P. is predicated on clauses in a Letter of Intent dated 02.12.2016 ('LOI' for brevity) issued by the respondent qua 'Skeleton Track Linking Work'.2/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
3. Learned counsel submits that Clauses 12 and 13 in the LOI serves as Arbitration Agreement between the parties and the same reads as follows :
'12. ARBITRATION :
Dispute or difference whatsoever if arise between PTL and L&T with regard to or in relation to terms of contract, efforts shall be made in the first place to settle it amicably. In case of failure, such dispute shall be referred to "Arbitration" (arbitrators agreed by L&T and PTL mutually). The Arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to be adjudicated by a panel of 3 Arbitrators of which one member each would be appointed respectively by L&T & PTL and the presiding & third member will be chosen by these two with their mutual consent. The decision arrived at the Arbitration proceedings will be final and binding on both the parties. The jurisdiction will be either in Chennai.
13. GOVERNING LAW:
The Work Order shall be construed in accordance with laws of India and courts in Chennai, India shall have jurisdiction.'
4. It is submitted by learned counsel that arbitral disputes erupted between the parties when the work was carried out and it primarily turns on claim of petitioner towards work done i.e., unpaid bills. It is not necessary to dilate much on this as this is a Section 11 legal drill.
5. The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement in and by a 3/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 notice dated 02.06.2020 inter alia by nominating a Arbitrator, calling upon the respondent to consent for the same and also nominating their Arbitrator, so that a three Member Arbitral Tribunal can be constituted. To be noted, the aforementioned arbitration agreement provides for arbitration by a three Member Arbitral Tribunal.
6. Aforementioned trigger notice met with a reply from the respondent. This reply is dated 05.08.2020. The interesting phenomenon in the reply is the respondent consents for nomination but requests for Schedule VI declaration qua A and C Act. The respondent has not nominated its Arbitrator. Besides this aspect of the matter, the respondent has also made it clear that Chennai is the seat as well as venue for arbitration and therefore the suggestion of the petitioner for holding arbitration in Delhi is unreasonable.
7. In the admission Board today, Mr.P.J.Sriganesh on instructions very fairly submits it is acceptable to the petitioner to have the arbitration conducted in Chennai. In other words, the seat and venue of arbitration shall be Chennai is his say.
8. As the respondent has not made its nomination, the procedure for nomination has failed, necessitating the presentation of captioned Arb.OP. in this Court is his case. In other words, the respondent asking for Schedule VI declaration without making a nomination means the procedure for appointment of Arbitrators as agreed between the parties vide Clause 12 has failed. Thirty days have since elapsed is his further say.
9. Prima facie case made out for issue of notice. Issue notice to 4/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 respondent returnable by a fortnight i.e., returnable by 30.06.2022. Private notice permitted.
List on 30.06.2022.'
3. Aforementioned 16.06.2022 proceedings shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. This also means that the abbreviations, short forms and short references used in the aforementioned earlier proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant order and this is obviously for convenience and clarity.
4. To be noted, thereafter there were three listings on 30.06.2022, 14.07.2022 and 21.07.2022 but it is not imperative to set out those proceedings as they only capture the procedural trajectory the captioned matter has taken before this Section 11 Court.
5. There is no disputation or disagreement between the learned counsel on either side as regards the existence of arbitration agreement i.e., Clauses 12 and 13 of LOI. Therefore, the test qua a legal drill as ingrained in sub-section (6A) thereat i.e., test regarding examination of arbitration agreement stands answered in the affirmative. As regards the arbitration clause, adverting to Clause 12, more particularly last sentence thereat, both learned counsel submit 5/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 that it is not happily worded. However, on instructions, both learned counsel/counsel on either side i.e., Mr.P.J.Rishikesh along with Ms.P.Elakkiya for petitioner and Ms.Preeti Mohan along with Ms.Ragha Sudha Ravi for respondent submit that the seat and venue qua arbitration clause in the case on hand is 'Chennai'. This further simplifies the task of discussion and dispositive reasoning qua the bone of contention in the case on hand.
6. Adverting to aforementioned 16.06.2022 proceedings, both learned counsel submit that it captures a thumbnail scope of the arbitrable disputes that have erupted qua primary contract. This means that the aforesaid proceedings shall not be construed as a comprehensive adumbration of arbitrable disputes that have arisen between the parties. It is only 'arbitrable disputes' as broadly stated. This will suffice for a Section 11 legal drill considering the lone bone of contention in the instant case. To be noted, there will be discussion regarding this lone bone of contention elsewhere infra in this order.
7. The basis on which the captioned Arb.O.P. has been filed or in other words the covenants / trigger trajectory on which the captioned Arb.O.P. is predicated and presented has already been captured in 16.06.2022 proceedings. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to straight away deal 6/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 with the counter affidavit filed by respondent. Though an elaborate counter affidavit spanning six pages and twelve paragraphs has been filed, learned counsel for respondent submitted that captioned Arb.O.P. is resisted on one ground and that one ground is absence of proper invocation of arbitration agreement.
8. This Court having set out the lone bone of contention, deems it appropriate to extract two communications exchanged between the parties to appreciate the discussion and dispositive reasons to follow infra. These two communications are a letter dated 02.06.2020 from the petitioner to the respondent and respondent's reply to the same, being letter dated 05.08.2020. A scanned reproduction of these two communications are as follows :
Letter dated 02.06.2020 :7/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 8/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 9/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 10/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 11/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 12/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 13/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 14/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 Letter dated 05.08.2020:15/36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 16/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 17/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 18/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 19/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 20/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 21/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
9. In support of her contention that there has been no proper invocation of arbitration clause, learned counsel for respondent drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.15 of petitioner's 02.06.2020 letter and submitted that it only calls upon the respondent-noticee to give consent for the petitioner's nominee but it does not call upon the respondent to make its nomination. It is also submitted that in the aforementioned reply dated 05.08.2020, the respondent had sought for 'The Sixth Schedule' of A and C Act qua the petitioner's nominee.
10. To buttress her submissions, learned counsel for petitioner pressed into service two case laws. The first case law is Alupro Building case i.e., Alupro Building Systems Pvt Ltd. Vs Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 7228 rendered by a Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Muralidhar, as the Hon'ble Judge then was). The second case law is, oft-quoted Datar Switchgears i.e., Datar Switchgears Ltd. Vs. Tata Finance Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2000) 8 SCC
151. Alupro Building case law was pressed into service to say that a notice under Section 21 of A and C Act is mandatory for kick-starting an arbitration but in my considered view, Alupro Building is an authority for the proposition 22/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 that continuing consent is a underlying jurisprudential stream for arbitration as a ADR mechanism. Datar Switchgears case law was relied on to say that once the time frame for appointment of arbitrator elapses, the contracting party against whom it is elapsed is deemed to have waived its right. There is no difficulty in accepting this proposition but as far as Section 11(6) petition is concerned (as is the case on hand) no time limit has been statutorily prescribed in contradistinction to Section 11(4) and Section 11(5) of A and C Act.
11. In response to the aforementioned arguments, learned counsel for respondent pressed into service two case laws and both are orders made by learned Single Judges of the High Court of Delhi. One is Badri Singh Vinimay Private Limited v. MMTC Limited reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Del 106 and the other is De Lage Landen Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Parhit Diagnostic Private Limited and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4160. These two case laws were pressed into service to say that Section 21 notice is not mandatory to kick-start an arbitration.
12. This Court having set the stage for discussion by setting out facts, trajectory and rival contentions, now proceeds to set out discussion and dispositive reasoning.
23/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
13. The first contention is lack of proper invocation of arbitration agreement. A careful perusal of 02.06.2020 notice from the petitioner makes it clear that petitioner has clearly mentioned its nominee and called upon the respondent to consent for the same. In the light of the language in which the arbitration agreement between the parties is couched it follows as an undisputed sequitur that it is for the respondent to make its nomination. Obviously it was open to the respondent to nominate but no nomination was made. Interestingly and intriguingly in the respondent's aforementioned reply dated 05.08.2020, particularly the concluding paragraph (second part of paragraph No.15), the respondent has said that it acknowledges the appointment of the individual made by the petitioner. It has been categorically mentioned 'We acknowledge appointment of Mr.V.K.Gupta as your nominee'. What prevented the respondent from making a nomination is the question which remains unanswered and unexplained in this hearing too. After all, the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed and even the eruption of arbitrable disputes qua primary contract is not disputed. Furthermore, arbitrability of the disputes is not a contentious issue before the parties. Absent of these facets, nothing prevented the respondent from making a nomination. As this question remains unanswered and unexplained, the first 24/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 question raised by the respondent pales into oblivion.
14. This takes this Court to the next contention regarding invocation of arbitration clause.
15. Section 21 of A and C Act is a mechanism to determine with specificity the date of commencement of arbitral proceedings and this in turn is for the purpose of testing limitation. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that Section 21 is a sine qua non to commence arbitration. As an illustration two contracting parties can concur on one name (in arbitration by a sole arbitrator) and write a common letter to a arbitrator. In institutional arbitrations, the dimensions and dynamics are different qua adhoc arbitration. To put it differently and to put it illustratively, notice under Section 21 of A and C Act is not akin to notice under Section 80 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for brevity] issued when a litigant who wants to institute a suit against State. Besides limitation, a notice under Section 21 may come to the aid of the litigant to demonstrate manifest intention to arbitrate. Therefore, Alupro Building Systems and Datar Switchgears do not come to the aid of the respondent in the case on hand. Alupro Building Systems is an authority for proposition qua continuing consent and the facts of Alupro Building Systems 25/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 are very different from the one on hand. That was a case where the arbitrator failed to make requisite disclosures and arbitral proceedings were commenced, all this is without any communication under Section 21 of A and C Act. Equally Datar Switchgears is an authority for the proposition that a contracting party which does not respond within the time frame is deemed to have waived its right to make a nomination. This Court while saying that Alupro Building Systems and Datar Switchgears are distinguishable on facts, reminds itself about the celebrated Padma Sundara Rao case i.e., declaration of law made by Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 9 and the same reads as follows :
'9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877(HL)]. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.' 26/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 To be noted, the declaration of law made by Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in Padma Sundara Rao case is a declaration as to how a precedent has to be cited and how one fact or one facet of the fact as between two cases can make a world of difference to the ratio and/or applicability of ratio.
16. As regards the two case laws pressed into service by the learned counsel for respondent namely Badri Singh Vinimay and De Lage Landen, the principle regarding Section 21 has already been delineated supra and it may not be necessary to delineate further on the same. Suffice to say that delineation made by this Court is in tune and tandem with the views taken in these case laws qua Section 21 of A and C Act.
17. This takes this case to the last lap of discussion and dispositive reasoning that turns on whether the captioned Arb.O.P. is under sub-section (6) or sub-section (4) of Section 11 of A and C Act. The caption in the case file shows that the petitioner has chosen to present the captioned Arb.O.P. under Section 11(6) of A and C Act. In the hearing, learned counsel attempted to say that the arbitration agreement on hand being one that provides for arbitration by three arbitrators, the default procedure set out in sub-section (3) of Section 11 has been replicated and therefore, the captioned matter can be treated to be 27/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 one under sub-section (4) of Section 11 also. This Court is of the considered view that to invoke sub-section (4), a protagonist of a Section 11 petition should be able to demonstrate that there is no agreed procedure and a conjoint reading of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11 make this position clear. On a demurrur if it is assumed that in the case on hand there is no appointment procedure, thirty days under Section 11(4)(a) will operate. The respondent has clearly failed to nominate an Arbitrator within thirty days from the date of receipt of aforementioned 02.06.2020 communication. Submission that this 02.06.2020 communication does not request the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator (alluded to supra), is no argument as language in which sub-section (3) is couched makes it clear that the moment one contracting party appoints a nominee, the other contracting party has to necessarily nominate an Arbitrator. As already alluded to supra in the case on hand there is nothing to demonstrate as to why the respondent did not nominate an Arbitrator when it responded to 02.06.2020 notice in and by communication dated 05.08.2020. Furthermore as regards sub-section (6) of Section 11, that talks about an agreed procedure, if the arbitration agreement on hand is construed to be one where there is an agreed procedure i.e., case where the contracting parties have agreed on a procedure, the same has clearly failed and the respondent has failed to act as 28/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 per the agreed procedure and therefore, Section 11(6)(a) would operate against the respondent. To put it differently, this Court tested the arguments vide Section 11(6)(a) and Section 11(4)(a) on a demurrur and it finds that in either way the respondent does not make much headway in resisting the captioned Section 11 application. It is also deemed appropriate to Section 11 court to make it clear that sub-sections (6) and (4) may well be in clear and distinct compartments which are mutually enclosed. Therefore, the very argument that the petitioner has presented captioned matter under sub-section (6) of Section 11 should be construed under sub-section (4) of Section 11 also itself is misplaced. It cannot be countenanced. However this Court has examined this argument also and this Court has given its dispositive reasoning qua the same also. The dispositive reasoning is, the respondent fails to make headway irrespective of whether it comes under sub-section (4) or sub-section (6) owing to its reply dated 05.08.2020 wherein it has clearly acknowledged the nomination made by the petitioner.
18. Before writing the concluding part of this order, this Court deems it appropriate to remind itself about two facets of the matter. One is sub-section (13) of Section 11 and the other is Shree Vishnu Constructions case law 29/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.05.2020 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.5306 of 2022 [Shree Vishnu Constructions Vs. The Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service & Ors., ]. Sub-section (13) of Section 11 of A and C Act reads as follows :
'(13) An application made under this section for appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators shall be disposed of by the Supreme Court or the High Court or the person or institution designated by such Court, as the case may be, as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.' In the case on hand, the first communication from the petitioner is dated 02.06.2020 and it is well past its second anniversary. Further delay would only delay the entire ADR mechanism. This has been elucidatively articulated in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Vishnu Constructions Vs. The Engineer in Chief, Military Engineering Service & Ors., and the most relevant portions of Shree Vishnu Constructions order are as follows :
'..... Therefore, if the arbitrators are not appointed at the earliest and the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) 30/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 of the Arbitration Act are kept pending for a number of years, it will defeat the object and purpose of the enactment of the Arbitration Act and it may lose the significance of an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If the Commercial disputes are not resolved at the earliest, not only it would affect the commercial relations between the parties but it would also affect economy of the country. It may affect the ease of doing business in the country.' '..... The litigant may lose the faith in the justice delivery system, which may ultimately affect not only rule of law but commerce and business in the country. Therefore, the applications under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration Act and other applications, either for substitution and/or change of the Arbitrator have to be decided and disposed of at the earliest.'
19. The above time-lines have also weighed in the minds of this Section 11 Court in taking a conclusive call quickly in Section 11 Arb.O.P. on hand.
20. This Court makes it clear that besides sub-section (6A) of Section 11 which has already been alluded to supra, there are two other facets of Section 11 and they are Nortel principle [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited reported in (2021) 5 SCC 738] and Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs NCC Limited rendered by 31/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.07.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.342 to 345 of 2022 [against SLP(C) Nos.13408/2019, 13815/2019, 13813/2019 and 13816/2019].
Nortel principle turns on ex facie barred by limitation plea and NCC case talks about the issues and facts which are 'clear and glaring' i.e., beyond any speck of doubt. This Court respectfully notices that this is articulated in paragraph No.13 of NCC case law and in paragraph No.13, it has been qualified by saying that in case of debatable and disputable facts or even good reasonable arguable cases, the same should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. In the case on hand, both parties are keen to have technical persons nominated in the three-Member Arbitral Tribunal. This Court put it to the parties about downsizing the three-Member Arbitral Tribunal, while the petitioner readily agreed, the respondent, on instructions insisted on a three-Member Arbitral Tribunal. Considering the nature of the primary contract i.e., 'Skeleton Track Linking Work', this Court deems it appropriate to appoint two technocrats as Arbitrators and one former Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court as Presiding Arbitrator.
21. As the respondent has readily acknowledged the nomination made by the petitioner, the technocrat nominated by the petitioner will be one 32/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 Arbitrator, this benefit being given to the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the technocrat suggested by the respondent is appointed as other Arbitrator. At the Bar on instructions, learned counsel suggested the name of Thiru.V.Somasundaram, Metro Rail Consultant. Therefore, having given the benefit of nominating the person suggested by the petitioner ( to be noted, the respondent has acknowledged the nomination), it is only appropriate that the nominee suggested by the respondent is made as far as the other Arbitrator is concerned. This Court deems it appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Justice Thiru.K.Kannan (Retd.) former Judge of this Court and former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, as Presiding Arbitrator. It is made clear that this Court appoints a three-Member Arbitral Tribunal which is as follows :
1) Hon'ble Justice Thiru.K.Kannan, (Retd.) former Judge of this Court and former Judge of High Court of Punjab & Haryana, having residence at New No.22, Gilchrist Avenue, Opp. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031, [Ph.No.28154145, Mobile No.097800-
08145] as Presiding Arbitrator.
2) Mr.V.K.Gupta, Ex-member (Engineering), Railway Board, B/206, IRCON Apartments, Sector 18A, Plot No.14, Dwarka, Delhi. 33/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022
3) Mr.V.Somasundaram, former Chief General Manager (Construction) of Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL), No.12A, 01, 13th Floor, Silver Oak, Allianz Orchid Springs, Korattur, Chennai– 600076,[Ph.No.9940234333; Email: [email protected]] The aforementioned three-Member Arbitral Tribunal is requested to enter upon reference qua primary contract being LOI dated 02.12.2016, adjudicate upon the arbitral disputes that have arisen between the parties and render an arbitral award by conducting arbitration by applying 'THE MADRAS HIGH COURT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS RULES, 2017' and the fee of the Hon'ble Presiding Arbitrator and each of the technocrat Arbitrators shall be as per Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees), Rules 2017. As regards sitting of the Hon'ble Arbitrators, as already alluded to supra, the parties have agreed that the seat and venue shall be Chennai but considering that one of the learned technocrat Arbitrator is based in Delhi, it is open to have a video conferencing or hybrid hearing, which may mean two Arbitrators sitting in Chennai and another joining through video conferencing. This Court deems it appropriate to leave all that to the discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal and counsel concerned, as long as the 34/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 same is in accordance with 'The Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2017'.
Captioned Arb.OP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
22.07.2022 ds Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to
1.The Hon'ble Justice Thiru.K.Kannan, (Retd.) Former Judge of Madras High Court & Former Judge of High Court of Punjab & Haryana, New No.22, Gilchrist Avenue Opp. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
Ph.No.28154145, Mobile No.097800-08145.
2.Mr.V.K.Gupta, Ex-member (Engineering), Railway Board B/206, IRCON Apartments Sector 18A, Plot No.14, Dwarka Delhi.
3.Mr.V.Somasundaram Former Chief General Manager (Construction) of Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) No.12A, 01, 13th Floor, Silver Oak Allianz Orchid Springs, Korattur, Chennai – 600 076. Ph.No.9940234333.
35/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 M.SUNDAR. J., ds Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.232 of 2022 22.07.2022 36/36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis