M/S B. Chandraiah and Sons v. Union of India

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY

Judgment date: 2026-04-13

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-13. M/S B. Chandraiah and Sons v. Union of India. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 3378 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY ARBITRATION APPLICAI'ION NO: 87 OF 2025 Between M/S B. Chandraiah and Sons, H. No. 10-2-2761411, Nehru Nagar, West Maradpally, Secunderabad - 560026, A registered partnership firm represented. by its partner, b. Vinay kumar ... APPLICANT AND Union of lndia, represented by Chief Engineer (R and D), MES, Picket, Secunderabad - 500 003 ... RESPONDENT to appoint a Sole Arbitrator having degree in engineering or equivalent or having passed final or direct final examination of Sub-Division-ll of lnstitution of Surveyors (lndia) recognized by Government of lndia as per the arbitration in clause 6 (c) in Sl Page No.

83 of the contract agreement and condition 70 of General Conditions of Contracts IAFW 2249 for resolution of the disputes arisen in the performance of the Contract and,pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. C Vijaya Kumar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. K Mohan The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COI'R]T FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHT Arbttration Arrrrlicatlon IIo. 8 7 of2ol25, Date of order: L3. (h. 2O26 BEf,WEEN M/s. B. Chandraiah and Sons ... Applicant and Union of Indizt ...

Respondent ORDER: The instant Arbitration Application has been Ii1ed by the applicant under Sectio n 1 5(2) read with Section 1 1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the scheme for appointment of Arbitrators, 1996 praying the Court to appoint a sole arbitrator having degree in engineering or equivalent or having passed final or direct final examination of Sub-Division-Il of Institution of Surveyors (India) recognized by Ggvernment of India as per the arbitration in Clause 6(c) at Serial Pag: No. 83 of the contract agreement and condition 7O of General Conditions of Contracts I. A. F. W. 2249 for resolution of disputes arisen in the performance of Contract. 2. Heard Mr. C. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant; and Mr. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The applicant herein is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of taking up and carrying out contract works with Military Engineering Services (M. E. S. ), Public Work Department (P. W. D.

), and Railways and also other works of civil nature; and respondent herein is the Union of India represented by Chief Engineer R & D, Ultitary Engineer Senrices, Picket, Secunderabad. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent had floated a tender vide No. 824IOl8OlE8, dated 29. 03. 2010, which was subsequently amend. ed vide letter No. 824 LO 82/88, dated 15. 04. 2019, I for construction of Multi-Level Car parking at GTRE, Bangalore; the appticant herein had participated in the tender process; since the applicant was declared as the lowest bidder, the respondent-Union had accepted, the offer of the applicant; accordingly, the applicant was allocated work contract agreement bearing number C. A. No. CERD/BAN/06 of 2OLO-2OLL; the said contract work was / . // scheduled to be completed by 26. L2. 2o11; though the contract work initially got prolonged, however the same was finally completed on 22. 03.

201,7, and the respondent had accordingly issued completion certilicate vide their letter No. 8458/East/63 L /D8, dated 2T. }S. 2OLZ. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had add. ressed an application to the respondent on 26. 10. 2020, requesting the respondr:nt to clear dues / amount payable to the appiicant; however, virle letter No. 824lolsrslE8, dated 10. 1 1 . 2o2o, the respondent rejected the claim of applicant stating that the claim of applicant of etpplicant is out of purview of the contract; on the basis of rejection of the respondent, the applicant invoked Clause 6(c) of the contract agreoment duly suggesting three names of retired officers of the Department of Military Engineer Services, and requested the respondent to chose one iilnong the three name; however, the respondent, vide reply dated L2. or.

tto2l, disagreed to choose a name from among the three nEunes suggesrted by the applicant and stated that the arbitrator should be appointed by Engineer-in-chief under condition 70 of the General Conditions of Contracts (GCc) IAFW 2249; finally, the applicant has approached this Court by filing Arbitration Application No. 55 of 2O2L seeking for appointment of a sole arbitrator; vide order d*. d 23. 06. 2022, . j' n a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to appoint Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh RanganatJran, Retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarkhand; however, the said Sole Arbitrator resigned as sole arbitrator on 15. LO. 2O22. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that, on 25. 07. 2024, the applicant again requested the respondent for appointment of a sole arbitrator by mutual agreement; since there was no response from tJre respondent, the applicant was constrained to file Arbitration Application No.

246 of 2024 before this Court; however, the said arbitration application was dismissed as withdrawn on 13. 03. 2025 with a permission to file a fresh application under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, L996; accordingly, the applicant herein again filed the instant arbitration application before this Court. 7. On 20. 06. 2025, notice was ordered to the respondent, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent had entered appearErnce and filed counter-affrdavit in the matter. 8. Perused the record. i 9. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and also taking into the consideration the nature of dispute, there seems to be a clear disputr: raised by either party which needs to be decided in the course of arbitration proceedings by invoking Clause 6(c) of the contract agreement into between the applicant and respondent.

=ntered Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant arbitration application can be allowed by referring the matter to a sole arbitrator frc,m the Impanelled Arbitrators (Engineers), Hyderabad from the Indian Council of Arbitrators. 10. Accordingly, this court appoints Mr. K. Ravi Kishore, chief Engineer, Mr. litary Engineer Services (M. E. s. ), resident of H. No. 10-3- 274/7, Humir5run Nagar, Hyderabad 5oo o28, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. 11. Needless to state that both parties are at liberty to raise all claims and counter r:laims before the sole arbitrator who in turn shall conduct the arbitraticn proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Act. The venue of arbitration shall be decided mutually by the parties subject to consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator.

The fee payable li to the learned Arbitrator shall also be decided mutualy by the parties in consultation and agreement with the rearned Arbitrator. t2. The Arbitration Apprication stands aflowed as above. No costs. 13. As a sequel, miscenaneous petitions, pending if any, shail stand closed. a SD/- M,MANJUI. A. JOTNT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII a SECTION O. FEICER 1. Mr. K. Ravi Kishore, Chief Engineer, Military Engineer Services (M. E. S) resident of H. No. 10-3-27417, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabgd-s00 028. (By Speciat Messenger)(Atong with a Copy of affidavit and rfaterial papers) 2. One CC to Mr. C. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Advocate TOPUCI 3. One CC to Mr. K Mohan, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies '/ DL W HIGH COURT DATED: 13t04t2026 'r4 IF. E S o o 2 5 rPR 2! [$ t * * T= 3 l-f B APPt.. No. 87 ot 2025 l Y G E APPEAUDISMISSING/DISPOSING/CLOSING lk

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.