D.PRABHAKARA RAO, KRISHNA DIST. v. UNION OF INDIA, SECBAD AND 2 OTHERS
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-28. D.PRABHAKARA RAO, KRISHNA DIST. v. UNION OF INDIA, SECBAD AND 2 OTHERS. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD I\4ONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 101 OF 2017 Between: D, Prabhakare Rao, S/o Samba Siva Rao, Aged about 40 years, Proprietor D. Prabhakara Rao and Company, Civil Mechanical Contractors, fuo. Kattubadi Palem, (Post), Viz Kondapalli, G. Kondur Mandal, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. ... Applica nt AND Divisional Railway Manager (Works), South Central Railway Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...
Respondent Application under" Sectionl l (5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 'l 996 and Scheme of Appointment Arbitrator praying that for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Section 1'1 (5) and (6) of Arbitration and Concillation Act, '1996, read with Rules and Scheme under the Act for getting the disputes resolved between the parties and for passing an award by such Sole Arbitrator and passed other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit. This application coming on for hearing, upon perusing the application and affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate for the Applicant and of Sri C. V. Rajeev Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY I Arbitration Application No.
101 of 2017 ORDER: This application is filed under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the respondent-railways. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-railways called for tenders for various works and the applicant being civil and mechanical contractor has submitted its offer on 26. 08. 2011 tor a total value of Rs. 50,86,242l- for the said works and the said offer was accepted vide letter dated 18. 11. 2011 . However, the respondent called for another tender for the works which were already allotted to the applicant vide letter '18. 11. 2011. dated Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed W. P. No. 22 of 2013 and the same was disposed of on 18. 02. 2013, granting liberty to the applicant to seek reference of the disputes for arbitration and thereupon, the applicant made a request on 30. 01.
2015 before the respondent for appointment of arbitrator, but the same was rejected on 07. 07. 2015. Hence, the present application is filed. 3. The respondent filed counter stating that the arbitration application is not maintainable as the applicant has not impleaded the Union of lndia represented by the General Manager, South Central Railways, Secunderabhad, as party respondent. That as the claims/disputes put forth by the applicant have exceeded to the value of more than 2Oo/o ol lhe agreement value, the disputes cannot be referred to arbitration and the provisions of Clauses 63 and 64 of General Conditions of Contract are not applicable for referring the disputes to be settled through arbitration and as such, the competent authority has rejected the applicant's request for ARR, J Arb. Appl. No. 101 of 201 7 appointment of arbitrator vide letter daled 07. 07. 2015. Though the writ petition was disposed of on 18. 02.
201 3, the applicant made a request for appointment of arbitrator on 30. 01 . 2015 i. e. , almost two years after disposal of the writ petition, and as such, this application is liable to be issued dismissed on the ground of delay and that though the applicant was with the acceptance letter dated 18'11'2011' for the value of il Rs. 50,86,242l- with a completion period of eight months by 17 '07 '2012' agreement and also not approached has not come forward to execute the the work and as such' the respondent had the respondent to commence deposit amount of Rs 85'700/- The forfeited the earnest money rejecting the request of termination of contract and letter dated 07. 07. 2015, valid' and the of arbitrator, are legal and the applicant for appointment application is liable to be dismissed. . learned counsel for the 4. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Counsel for the applicant and Sri C. V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned Standing respondent. 5.
Atthehearing,learnedStandingCounselfortherespondentsubmits of arbitrator to has no objection for appointment that the respondent the applicant and the respondent; and resolve the disputes between to the same' learned counsel for the applicant also acceded is the Arbitration Application 6. ln view of the aforesaid submissions, steps for nominating the the respondent to take disposed of, directing arbitrator in terms of clause-64 0f General conditions of contract, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications' if any' pending in shall stand closed' the Arbitration Application / RAO SD/- K. GANGADHAR I JOINT REGISTRAR )- //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, Gangadhar Chamarty' Advocate,[OPUCI 1. One CC to Sri Sai v. Raleeva Reddv' Advocate [oPUC] ; 6;; ;a io sri c. 3, Two CD CoPies N* I HIGH COURT ARRJ DATED:2811212020 SIA 7€ Y ,J :z 2ce1 ,J 2 0 JA[| a I _b . ,: * ! L 'f u ,1 F ORDER ARB/APPL. No.
1 01 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE ARBTTRATION APPLICATION qrV ieA \c-"? -}\s \. '\*'-r
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.