Partly allowed

Prestress (I) Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. v. General Manager (Works) Central Railway and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Sept 2009WP/2867/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, while admitting the petition based on Empire Jute Company Ltd., referred the dispute regarding reimbursement of turnover tax to a sole arbitrator as per Clause 2900 of the contract agreement, invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; the dispute regarding turnover tax reimbursement was referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the respondents.

Prestress (I) Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. Vs General Manager (Works) Central… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

mgn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2867 of 2002

¶4

Prestress (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners

¶5

vs.

¶6

General Manager (Works) Central
Railway and Ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. G.S. Jetly, Senior Counsel and
Mr. Atul S. Tungare, for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.V.Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Suresh Kumar for
the respondents.

¶9

 CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
 D.G. KARNIK, JJ.
DATED : 25th SEPTEMBER , 2009

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The petitioner had approached this Court contending

¶12

that in terms of the contract signed between the parties
Railways had to reimburse the turnover tax to the
petitioners. They have failed to do so. Petition was
admitted. Respondents have filed their reply. Learned
Counsel has drawn our attention to Clause 2900 which
provides for Arbitration, which reads as under:-

¶13

“2900. Arbitration:

¶14

(A) In the event of any question, dispute or
difference arising under these conditions or any
special conditions of contract, or in connection
with this contract (except as to any matters the

¶15

decision of which is specially provided for by these

¶16

or the special conditions) the same shall be
referred to the sole arbitration of a Gazetted
Railway Officer appointed to be the arbitrator, by
the General Manager in the case of contracts entered
into by the Zonal Railways and Production Units; by

¶17

any Member of the Railway board in the case of
contracts entered into by the Railway Board and by
the Head of the Organisation in respect of contracts
entered into by the other organisation under the
Ministry of Railways. The gazetted Railway Officer
to be appointed as arbitrator however will not be

¶18

one of those who had an opportunity to deal with the
mattes to which the contract relates or who in the
course of their duties as railway servant have
expressed views on all or any of the matters under
dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator
shall be final and binding on the parties to this
contract.”

¶19

Our attention is invited to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Empire Jute Company Limited & Ors. vs. Jute
Corporation of India Limited & Anr., (2007) 14 S.C.C.
680.

¶20

2.The petitioners have based their contention on para.

¶21

2.2 and 4 of the Agreement signed between the parties.
On the other hand on behalf of the respondents reference
is made to letters dated 8th August, 2001, 31st July, 2002
and 4th October, 2002 which is also the correspondence on

¶22

record. It is the submission on behalf of the
respondents that turnover tax is not part of sales tax
and as such the petitioners herein are not entitled to
reimbursement.

¶23

3.Considering the controversy and Section 8 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, in our opinion
though the petition was admitted considering the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Company
Limited(supra) we refer the matter to an Arbitrator to
be appointed in terms of the contract between the
parties and the dispute in terms of Clause as earlier
reproduced. The following dispute is to be decided by
the Arbitrator to be appointed by the respondents:-

¶24

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive

¶25

turnover tax from the Central Railways on supply of
complete finished sleepers in view of clause 2.2 of
the contract agreement No.W 188.C 361/CS-145 dated

¶26

30-01-2002.”

¶27

4. On behalf of the respondents learned Counsel submits that they will appoint an Arbitrator within four weeks from today.

¶28

5. The Arbitrator to decide the controversy as referred and dispose of the same according to law.

¶29

(D.G. KARNIK,J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

Prestress (I) Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. v. General Manager (Works) Central Railway and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prestress (I) Pvt.Ltd.and Anr. v. General Manager (Works) Central Railway and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai Vs Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd.

Famous Cine LABandSTUDIOS Vs Union of India

M/S. Goodless Neolac Paints Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Addl Commissioner of Sales Tax (Vat) 3, Mumbai Vs D.G.P. Hinoday Industries Ltd. Pune

Television and Componacts andANR. Vs Union of India and Orss.

Television and Componacts Vs Union of India andORSS.