Karnataka High Court
Shri. P. Krishnan vs General Manager on 1 October, 2020
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.32/2020
Between:
Shri P. Krishnan
Contractor,
Souparnika,
Alvaris Road,
Kadri Post,
Mangalore - 575 022. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivaprakash P.V., Advocate)
And:
1. General Manager,
South Western Railway,
Hubli - 580 023.
2. Senior Divisional Engineer (Co-ordination),
South Western Railway,
Mysuru - 570 001.
3. Senior Divisional Engineer (West),
South Western Railway,
Mysuru - 570 001.
4. Divisional Railway Manager (Works),
South Western Railway,
Mysuru - 570 001. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Kavitha H.C., Advocate for R1 to R4)
2
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying
to a) To direct the General Manager, South Western Railway,
Hubli directing him to appoint an arbitrator from outside the
purview of the departmental person as per Arbitration
Clause 64(1) of GCC - Demand for Arbitration @ serial
No.22.3 page 20 of the Agreement dated 24/04/2018 to
settle vide Annexure-C to settle the dispute, in respect of the
claim for EMD and PG to be refunded by the respondents
and any other statutory claims plus 10 Contractor Profit
b) For the cost of this proceedings c) For any other
relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the
circumstances of the case.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for
admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for invocation of the arbitration clause in the document at Annexure-C in connection with entrustment of work by way of tender to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner submits that as per the allotment of work by way of tender, the petitioner had made arrangements to complete the work that was allotted. It is stated that in light of certain differences, the petitioner was asked to stop the work stating that there was change of plan.
3
3. It is submitted that as the petitioner could not go ahead with execution of the work that was allotted, the dispute has arisen which is required to be resolved through arbitration.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that insofar as refund of security deposit and Performance Guarantee, the respondent undertakes to make payment of Rs.8,30,140/- (security deposit and performance guarantee).
5. As regards to the remaining dispute is concerned, insofar as the appointment of arbitrator is concerned, the respondent is directed to appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of the procedure provided under Section 64(3)(a)(i) of the General Conditions of Contract, as the admitted claim is below Rs.1.00 crore.
6. It is however made clear that for the purpose of impartiality in appointment of arbitrator, learned 4 counsel appearing for the respondent upon instructions submits that instead of Gazetted Officer of the Railway Department as contained in Clause 64(3)(a)(i), the a retired official of Railway Department who is empanelled as Railway Arbitrator would be appointed. The General Manager to take steps to initiate arbitration within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7. This petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE VGR