Karnataka High Court
Jsw Steel Ltd vs M/S Elite Engineers And Fabricators on 1 February, 2013
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
C.M.P. NO.63/2009
Between :
JSW Steel Ltd.
(Formerly Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited)
Jindal Mansion
5A, Dr. G Deshmukh Marg.
Mumbai-400 026
and rep. by its General Manager-Finance
Mr. Ramesh K Chandra ... Petitioner
(By Sri S Siddappa & Sri Suni Dutt Yadav, Adv.)
And :
M/s. Elite Engineers & Fabricators
Plot No.70, APIIC, MOULALI
Hyderabad - 500 040
Rep. by its Sole Proprietor
Mr. Mohammed Sadique ... Respondent
(Notice held sufficient)
This Civil Misc. Petition filed under Section.11(5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an
arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute having arisen regarding
the breach and non-compliance by the respondents of the
POs dated 10.03.2005 and 22.03.2005 at Annexures 'B' & 'C'
and etc.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for
admission, this day, the Court made the following :
2
ORDER
The respondent though served through paper publication have not chosen to appear before this Court. As such, the notice issued to respondent has already been held sufficient. Hence, they are proceeded ex- parte.
2. The petitioner is before this Court praying that the Arbitrator may be appointed to arbitrate upon the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner contends that they have entered into a purchase order with the respondent dated 22.03.2005. Pursuant to the said purchase order and the terms regulating therein, there were certain issues which were to be agreed upon between the parties. As such, a Memorandum of Understanding had been entered into between them.
3. The grievance at present is that the terms and understanding have not been adhered to by the respondent and as such, there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the contract which had been 3 entered into between them. In that context, it is contended that Clause 8 of the said contract provides for resolution of disputes by arbitration. In that view, the petitioner had issued a notice dated 26.08.2008 suggesting the name of the Arbitrator and also seeking for appointment of the Arbitrator by the respondent so as to enable the said Arbitrators to appoint the third Arbitrator as agreed under the contract. The said notice has been served on the respondent on 09.09.2008. The respondent has neither replied to the said notice nor suggested the name of their Arbitrator. In that context, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Prima facie, a perusal of the contract would indicate the existence of the arbitration clause. Though the said arbitration clause provides for appointment of three Arbitrators, one each to be suggested by the petitioner and respondent respectively and further though the petitioner has suggested their Arbitrator, at this juncture, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to refer the matter to a sole Arbitrator who would enter upon reference and decide the matter. 4
5. In that view, Sri A.P. Murari, Retired District and Sessions Judge, No.15-A, Michijan Compound, 3rd Cross, Saptapur, Dharwad, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and arbitrate the dispute between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner shall file their claim statement before the Arbitrator who shall thereafter settle upon the terms of the Arbitration, issue notice to the respondent, consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petition is allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE hrp/bms