Disposed

M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2022ARBAPPL/5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an arbitration application seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that as the contract data did not name the adjudicator and the respondent failed to appoint one after notice, the application was not premature. The court appointed a retired district judge as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. S. Suryanarayana, Retired District Judge, as sole arbitrator for 02.03.2022.

M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited Vs The State… — Arbitration | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.5 of 2021

¶4

(Through virtual mode)

¶5

M. Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited represented by its Managing Director M. Venkata Rao, S/o Veera Raghavaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Principal Secretary, R & B Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. and others. …Respondents Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Palla Balu Anil Kumar Counsel for the respondent : Mr. T. Balaswami, GP

¶8

on behalf of G.P. for Irrigation

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

Dt:11.02.2022

¶11

The present application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes arose between the parties.

¶12

The applicant was the successful bidder having quoted the lowest price of Rs.8,79,63,410/- for the work of reconstruction of high level bridge in KM 18/8 of Bhimavaram-Narsapuram Road across Gonteru Drain in West Godavari District, consequent to which, both the parties entered into an agreement dated 07.03.2017 vide its CR Agreement No.175/20162017. According to the applicant, it has completed the work satisfactorily

¶13

as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and handed over the project to the officials of the respondent. However, the entire payment

¶14

HCJ A.A.No.5/2021

¶15

¶16

due to it as per the terms and conditions of the contract has not been paid. It is stated in the application that as per the contractual obligation, the respondent is liable to reimburse the amount of GST and other taxes paid by the applicant to the value of the work executed. However, despite representations such reimbursement has not been made.

¶17

Mr. T. Balaswami, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection that as the applicant has not exhausted internal remedy available to it in terms of the contract, this application under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is premature.

¶18

Refuting the said submission, the learned counsel for the applicant would refer to the notice given by the applicant to the Superintending Engineer (R & B), Eluru Circle, Eluru, dated 14.12.2020, which is available at page No.34 of the material papers, for appointment of adjudicator/arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. Thus, according to the applicant, despite notice, as the respondent failed to appoint adjudicator, the applicant cannot be blamed and this application cannot be considered as premature.

¶19

It is undisputed that Clause 24 of the agreement provides that any dispute arose in respect of the subject work shall be referred to the adjudicator and thereafter, if the dispute is not resolved, it will be referred to the arbitrator. The word ‘Adjudicator’ has been defined in clause No.1.1 of the agreement. It says that the Adjudicator is the person appointed jointly by the Employer and the Contractor to resolve disputes in the first instance, as provided for in Clauses 24 and 25 and that the name of the Adjudicator is defined in the Contract Data.

¶20

HCJ A.A.No.5/2021

¶21

¶22

The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that Contract Data has not provided the name of the adjudicator.

¶23

In the absence of the adjudicator’s name in the Contract Data and as the respondent failed to appoint the adjudicator despite notice by the applicant, this application under Section 11(6) of the Act cannot be said to be premature. In view of the same and since there is a dispute between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute arose between the parties can only be adjudicated by the arbitrator.

¶24

In view of the above, Mr. S. Suryanarayana, Retired District Judge, is appointed as sole arbitrator. Both the parties shall appear before the arbitrator on 02.03.2022. The parties are at liberty to file their respective pleadings before the arbitrator.

¶25

The fee of the arbitrator, place of arbitration and the other terms and conditions shall be settled by the arbitrator so appointed in consultation with the parties.

¶26

Registry will send a copy of this order to Mr. S. Suryanarayana, Retired District Judge, D.No.2-10-15, Plot No.MIG 1838, Sector-9, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam-17.

¶27

Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is disposed of. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶28

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ

¶29

M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Venkata Rao Infra Projects Private Limited v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.S.R.Murthy Vs the Govt. of A.P.

P.Satishbabu, Vs Sri Venkateshwara University

M/S Western Carriers (India) Limited Vs the the Container Corporation of India Limited

M/s. Sree Venkateswara Projects Vs M.S.Lakshmana Rao

M/s.Alana Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/s.My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt., Ltd.

Dr. Nanduri Janaki Ram Vs M/S Oak Tree Constructions Private Limited