Allowed

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/S Prasad and Company (Project Works)Ltd

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2021CMP/229/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected petitions filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought appointment of an arbitrator. The court held that a distinct second phase dispute was arbitrable under the contract's clause, overriding a prior award's jurisdictional bar, and appointed a sole retired judge. Appeals dismissed to arbitration center.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri Justice V.Gopala Gowda as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties under the agreement.

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs M/S Prasad and Company… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.44/2021 C/W.

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.229/2020

¶8

IN CMP NO.44/2021

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

M/S.PRASAD AND COMPANY (PROJECT WORKS) LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 6-3-871/3, 'SNEHALATA', GREENLANDS ROAD, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500 016 TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

... PETITIONER

¶12

[BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SR. ADV., A/W. SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADV.]

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.1249 PROF. CNR RAO CIRCLE, IISC POST, MALESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 012.

¶15

¶16

2 . NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶17

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KHANIJ BHAVAN, CASTLE HILLS, MASAB TANK, HYDERABAD – 500 028 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

….RESPONDENTS

¶19

[BY SRI GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADV., FOR R-1(PHYSICAL HEARING) SRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHMED, ADV., FOR R-2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶20

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO;

¶21

A. APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES AND CLAIMS THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1, IN THE MATTER OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT DATED 03.09.2011 (UNDER ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITIONER) AND GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT ALONG WITH WORK ORDER SPECIFICATION (UNDER ANNEXURE-C TO THE PETITIONER) IN CONNECTION WITH THE TERMINATION OF WORK ORDER NO.88/11/0032/PS DATED 14/10/2011 (UNDER ANNEXURE-B1 TO THE PETITION) AND WORK ORDER NO.88/11/0033/PS DATED 14/10/2011 (UNDER ANNEXURE-B2 TO THE PETITION), IN THE PRESENCE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2, EXERCISING POWERS UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶22

IN CMP NO.229/2020

¶23

BETWEEN

¶24

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHEL HOUSE, SIRI FORT, NEW DELHI-110 049,

¶25

AND ITS INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS GROUP AT P.B. NO.1249,

¶26

¶27

PROF.C N R RAO CIRCLE, IISC POST, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 012 REPRESENTED BY MR.R.BABU, AGM(MM)

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI GANAPATHI HEGDE, ADV. (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶30

AND

¶31

M/S.PRASAD AND COMPANY (PROJECT WORKS) LTD., 6-3-871, 'SNEHALATHA', GREEN LANDS ROAD, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD – 500 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶32

... RESPONDENT

¶33

[BY SRI ADITYA SONDHI, SR. ADV., A/W. SRI JAYANTH DEV KUMAR, ADV. (PHYSICAL HEARING)]

¶34

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) AND 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO; 1. PASS AN ORDER APPOINTING ANY ONE OF THE HON'BLE JUDGES UNDER THE AEGIS OF THE ARBITRATION CENTREKARNATAKA (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) BENGALURU, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONER ARISING OUT OF THE WORK ORDERS DATED: 14/10/2011 (ANNEXURE A AND ANNEXURE A-1) AND THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT (ANNEXURE B) AND ETC.,

¶35

THESE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Both these petitions spring from a common agreement

¶38

between the parties and are filed seeking a common prayer of appointment of an Arbitrator albeit for different disputes

¶39

¶40

arising out of the said agreement invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner in C.M.P.No.44 of 2021 would be referred to as the company and the petitioner in C.M.P.NO.229 of 2020 would be referred to as the BHEL in this order.

¶41

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleading are as follows:-

¶42

Facts in C.M.P. No.44 of 2021 are that the petitionerM/s. Prasad & Company (Project Works) Limited is a company involved in architectural, engineering and other technical activities. 1^st respondent/BHEL issued a notice inviting tender for pre-tender tie up for civil package/civil works for coal handling plant and ore handling plant for the NMDC project for 3.0 MTPY steel plant at Nagarnar. In furtherance of the said document of tender, on 3.09.2011 the NMDC enters into a contract with BHEL for setting up raw material handling system at Nagarnar, Chhattisgarh. The company was awarded

¶43

¶44

a sub-contract from the hands of BHEL on 14-11-02011 for designing, engineering, supply, fabrication contract and other incidental civil works for coal and ore handling plant for the purpose of raw material handling system of the NMDC. In terms of the award of sub-contract work order, specification was issued to the company on 23-11-2011. BHEL and the company generated certain disputes with regard to conditions of contract and in terms of clause 58 of the contract dated 1411-2011 the dispute was referred and adjudicated by an Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.50 of 2015 between the and BHEL. There were several claims of the company against BHEL in respect of the dispute that arose in the matter of execution of contract and other work orders. This is referred to as the first phase of dispute between the parties.

¶45

The first phase of dispute was arbitrated by the Arbitral Tribunal of Justice V.Jagannathan, who by his order dated 2.12.2015 dismissed the claim of the company holding that the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to arbitrate upon

¶46

¶47

the dispute in the absence of NMDC as the contract between BHEL and the company was on back to back basis with the contract between NMDC and BHEL. Since the dispute was held to be not maintainable no other issue was gone into by the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶48

This order of the Arbitral Tribunal is called in question

¶49

by the company in Arbitration Suit in A.S.No.195 of 2015 before the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore and is pending consideration.

¶50

On 29-06-2019, BHEL issued a notice of termination of

¶51

all the work orders issued to the company on the ground that NMDC had issued a notice of termination of contract with the BHEL. The ground of issuance of notice was that the company

¶52

was responsible for such an act of termination by NMDC against BHEL. The notice of termination was issued on 29-06-2019. This is referred to as the second phase of dispute. In reply to the generation of the aforesaid second phase of dispute, the company on 06-07-2019 narrated that it had

¶53

¶54

discharged its contractual duties to the best of its ability and owing to various adversities attributable to BHEL in not providing necessary infrastructure to perform its obligations under the contract it had performed to its best and requested BHEL to withdraw the notice of termination and continue the work in terms of what was awarded earlier. This was not heeded by BHEL and termination of contract was issued on 15-07-2019. The petitioner replied on 23-07-2019 to the termination of contract denying all the allegations of breach of contract made in the termination.

¶55

On 03-08-2019, the BHEL again called upon the Company to execute further activities for the purpose of protecting part of facilities already executed, after which the dispute between the parties arose and subsisted in terms of what was indicated on 21-11-2019 calling upon BHEL to settle all the pending payments to enable the company to make payments to the vendors and contractors. The company demanded these amounts based on the communication dated

¶56

¶57

21-11-2019. The BHEL replies on 21.12.2019 raising several contentions and further makes claims against the company and with regard to arbitration the BHEL replied that it would intimate the name of the Arbitrator once it comes to consensus.

¶58

It appears that the BHEL issued a notice on 22-01-

¶59

2020 suggesting the names of certain retired Judges to be appointed as Arbitrator on behalf of BHEL as the sole Arbitrator calling upon the company for its consent. The consensus not being arrived at between the parties with regard to various disputes and also with regard to appointment of the Arbitrator, subject CMP is filed by the company.

¶60

The facts in C.M.P. No.229 of 2020 are that this petition is preferred by the BHEL. Though the petition springs from the very same agreement certain claims of BHEL are the subject matter of this CMP. First phase of dispute and the second phase of dispute, as narrated hereinabove, are all common to this petition also and are, therefore, not reiterated.

¶61

¶62

The notice of termination that runs through the stream in both

¶63

the petitions is common i.e., on 15-07-2019.

¶64

On 21-12-2019, the BHEL replied rejecting arbitration notice issued by the company on 20.11.2019 on the ground that in the light of Arbitration Case No.50 of 2015 mentioned supra there is a bar to initiate arbitration by the company as NMDC is not an entity which has entered into an agreement of contract with the company and, therefore, rejected the plea of arbitration. On 22-01-2020 the BHEL issues notice of arbitration raising various claims and damages for the act of the company and the BHEL suffering an order of termination of contract by the NMDC. On 26-03-2020 the company refused to give its consent for the nomination of any of the Arbitrators suggested by the BHEL which has driven the BHEL to this petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. Therefore, both these petitions are filed for the same purpose of appointment of Arbitrator in respect of disputes generated by the parties as afore-narrated.

¶65

¶66

Heard Sri Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel

¶67

along with Sri Jayanth Dev Kumar, learned counsel for the Company, Sri Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel for the BHEL and Sri Mohammed Rizwan Ahmed, learned counsel for NMDC.

¶68

The learned senior counsel, Sri Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the Company would submit that the agreement between the parties contemplates resolution of dispute arising from out of the agreement, by way of arbitration. He would emphasize that it is the interpretation of the agreement and termination of contract dated 15-07-2019, that has given rise to various claims by the company and, therefore the BHEL would have no objection for appointment of arbitrator. He would further submit that the earlier award of the Arbitral Tribunal dismissing the claim of the company was without the NMDC being made a party. It was held that the arbitration was not maintainable on that ground. In the second phase of dispute by way of ex abundante cautela, notices have been issued to NMDC as well seeking resolution of the dispute

¶69

¶70

between the Company and BHEL by way of arbitration and that there should be no qualm about appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶71

On the other hand, Sri Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel representing BHEL would again lay on the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal earlier had dismissed the case on the ground that NMDC was not a party to the agreement and, therefore, the Company cannot seek arbitration as there is no agreement between the company and the NMDC. He would submit that the Company would not be rendered remediless as it is always open to it to institute a civil suit seeking all the claims as are made in the present dispute.

¶72

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶73

submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.

¶74

¶75

For a resolution of the contentions and contra-

¶76

contentions of both the parties in these petitions what is germane to be noticed is the agreement entered into between the company and the BHEL dated 23-11-2011 as both these disputes spring from the very same agreement and in the agreement it is necessary to notice the clause of arbitration, which reads as follows:

¶77

"ARBITRATION:

¶78

Except where otherwise provided for in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specification, design, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders of these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution of failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Managing

¶79

¶80

Director/Chief Engineer of BHEL and if the Managing Director/Chief Engineer is unable or unwilling to act, to the sole arbitration of some other person appointed by the Managing Director/General Manager/Chief Engineer, willing to act as such arbitrator. The cases referred to arbitration shall be other than those for which the decision of the Sr. M/P./D.C.E/Sr.E/C. is expressed in the contract to be final and conclusive. There will be no objection if the arbitrator so appointed is an employee of BHEL and that he had to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties as such he had expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred by vacating his office on being unable to act for any reason, such Managing Director/General Manager/Chief Engineer as aforesaid at the time of such transfer, vacation of office or liability to act, shall appoint another person to act as arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the contract. Such person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the state at which it was left by his predecessor.

¶81

¶82

Subject as aforesaid the provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made there under and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding.

¶83

It is a term of the contract that the party involving arbitration, shall specify the dispute or disputes to be referred to arbitration under this clause together with the amount or amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute.

¶84

The arbitrator (s) may from time to time with consent of the parties enlarge the time, for making and establishing the award.

¶85

The work under the contract shall, if reasonable possible, continue during the arbitration proceedings and no payment due to payable to the Contractor shall be withheld on account of such proceedings.

¶86

The Arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the ties fixing the dare of the first hearing.

¶87

¶88

The Arbitrator shall give a separate award in respect of each dispute or difference referred to him.

¶89

The Venue of arbitration shall be such place as may be fixed by the Arbitrator in his sole discretion.

¶90

The award of the arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding all parties to this contract."

¶91

It is invoking the aforesaid clause of arbitration both these petitions are filed. Based on the dispute between the company and the BHEL, the dispute was referred to Arbitration in A.C.No.50 of 2015. The claims were different. The Arbitrator

¶92

therein opined that the arbitration itself would not be maintainable in the absence of NMDC. The reason found in the order is as follows:

¶93

"76. In the case of M.R.Engineering and Contractors Private Limited Vs. Soma Datta Builders Limited reported in (2009) 7CC 696, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the

¶94

¶95

following preposition of law at Paragraph 16, 17 and 18 thus:

¶96

"16. There is a difference between reference to another document in a contract and incorporation of another document in a contract, by reference. In the first case, the parties intend to adopt only specific portions or part of the referred document for the purposes of the contract. In the second case, the parties intend to incorporate the referred document in entirety, into the contract. Therefore when there is a reference to a document in a contract, the court has to consider whether the reference to the document is with the intention of incorporating the contents of that document in entirety into the contract, or with the intention of adopting or borrowing specific portions of the said document for application to the contract.

¶97

¶98

17. We will give a few instances of incorporation and mere reference to explain the position (illustrative and not exhaustive). If a contract refers to a document and provides that the said document shall form part and parcel of the contract, or that all terms and conditions of he said document shall be read or treated as a part of the contract, or that the contract will be governed by the provisions of the said document, or that the terms and conditions of the said document shall be incorporated into the contract, the terms and conditions of the document in entirety will get bodily lifted and incorporated into the contract. When there is such incorporation of the terms and conditions of a document, every term of such documents (except to the extent it is inconsistent with any specific provision in the contract) will apply to the contract. If the document so incorporated contains a

¶99

¶100

provision for settlement of disputes by arbitration, the said arbitration clauses also will apply to the contract.

¶101

18. On the other hand, where there is only a reference to a document in a contract in a particular context, the document will not get incorporated in entirety into the contract. For example, if a contract provides that the specifications of the supplies will be as provided in an earlier contract or another purchase order, then it will be necessary to look to that document only for the limited purpose of ascertainment of specifications of a goods to be supplied. The referred document cannot be looked into for any other purpose, say price or payment of price. Similarly, if a contract between X and Y provides that the terms of payment to Y will be as in the contract between X and Z, then

¶102

¶103

only the terms of payment from the contract between X and Z, will be read as part of the contract between X and Y. The other terms, say relating to quantity or delivery cannot be looked into."

¶104

77. By the application of the principles laid down at Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the case on hand, in the light of the various terms and conditions of the contract between NMDC and BHEL being made applicable to the contract between BHEL and the claimant, this tribunal holds that the terms and conditions of NMDC and BHEL contract gets incorporated into the contract between BHEL and the claimant except to the extent they are at variance. The Apex Court has also observed in Para 17 above that if the document so incorporated contains provision for settlement of dispute by arbitration the said arbitration clause will also apply to the contract.

¶105

84. In the light of the above settled position in law as regards a jurisdiction of Arbitrator, in the case on hand for the reasons already mentioned while

¶106

¶107

analysing / interpreting the contractual terms and conditions between BHEL and the Claimant, it is held that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to bind NMDC *, which has not been made a party to the present proceedings."

¶108

This finding of the Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.50 of 2015 has been called in question by the company in an Arbitration Suit in A.S.No.195 of 2015 and the same is pending adjudication before the competent civil Court. The dispute now generated pertains to the aftermath of the aforesaid dispute. This dispute concerns termination of contract between the company and the BHEL which has now led to several claims of the company against the BHEL. In furtherance of those claims notice is issued by the company to the BHEL which is replied by rejecting arbitration itself on the ground that the arbitration is held to be not maintainable in Arbitration case No.50 of 2015.

¶109

The company has issued notices to NMDC as well

¶110

which is in receipt of the same. The notice does not indicate about the earlier proceedings or earlier claims as the notice

¶111

* Corrected vide Court Order dated 16/11/2021.

¶112

¶113

clearly indicates that the claim that has arisen out of the illegal termination of contract by the BHEL on 15-07-2019 and the result of such termination being various claims with regard to certain dues to be paid to the company by the BHEL. Since the dispute that has arisen between the parties is completely different than the earlier dispute albeit under the same clauses of the agreement, the pendency of proceedings before the civil Court in the arbitration suit would also be not an impediment. What calls for interpretation before this Court in these petitions is whether the dispute between the parties is arbitrable in the light of the Clause 58 (supra) and in my considered view, it is arbitrable.

¶114

The notice was issued by BHEL declining to accept arbitration on 04-03-2020. The reply given by the company again suggests invocation of arbitration clause with regard to the dispute that has arisen between the BHEL and the company. Therefore at one breath the BHEL declines to accept arbitration that there is no agreement between NMDC and the

¶115

¶116

company and in the other seeks appointment of Arbitrator again under the very same clause for resolution of the dispute between the BHEL and the company. The BHEL therefore cannot blow hot and cold seeking Arbitration for resolution of its dispute and declining arbitration for resolution of disputes of the Company. The justification of the BHEL that NMDC * is nowhere concerned between the BHEL and the company but the NMDC * has concern in the dispute between the company and the BHEL on the strength of the earlier order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is also unacceptable for the reasons indicated hereinabove as these proceedings are pending before the civil Court and the claims now generated are arising out of different actions of the BHEL in termination of contract. Therefore, both the petitions merit consideration for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute.

¶117

All other claims including the one of jurisdiction can

¶118

now be urged before the Arbitrator in terms of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act, reads as follows:

¶119

* Corrected vide Court Order dated 16/11/2021.

¶120

¶121

“16.Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.—

¶122

(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose,—

¶123

(a) an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract; and

¶124

(b) a decision by the arbitral tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause.

¶125

(2) A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence; however, a party shall not be precluded from raising such a plea merely because that he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.

¶126

¶127

(3) A plea that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised as soon as the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings.

¶128

(4) The arbitral tribunal may, in either of the cases referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), admit a later plea if it considers the delay justified.

¶129

(5) The arbitral tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in sub-section (2) or subsection (3) and, where the arbitral tribunal takes a decision rejecting the plea, continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an arbitral award.

¶130

(6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34."

¶131

All contentions of both the parties that are brought before

¶132

this Court are to be considered and decided by the Arbitrator

¶133

¶134

in terms of Section 16 of the Act (supra) which clearly deals

¶135

with competence of Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction as well. Reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ANOTHER

¶136

v. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED¹ , in the

¶137

circumstance is apposite wherein, the Apex Court holds as follows:

¶138

“34. In view of the legislative mandate contained in the amended Section 11(6-A), the Court is now required only to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement. All other preliminary or threshold issues are left to be decided by the arbitrator under Section 16, which enshrines the kompetenz-kompetenz principle. The doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz implies that the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered, and has the competence to rule on its own jurisdiction, including determination of all jurisdictional issues. This was intended to minimise judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage, so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at

¶139

1 (2021) 5 SCC 738

¶140

¶141

the threshold when a preliminary objection is raised by the parties.”

¶142

In the light of Section 16 of the Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BSNL (supra) , the contentions and contra-contentions with regard to arbitration or otherwise put forth before this Court can be agitated before the Arbitrator and this Court has no reason to believe that the Arbitrator would not adjudicate upon the contentions advanced by the company and the BHEL before this Court as Section 16 mandates and the judgment of the Apex Court directs so.

¶143

At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for NMDC submits that it is nowhere in the picture as agreement is between the Company and the BHEL and the NMDC is concerned only with the contract entered into with the BHEL. Since the present lis is between the BHEL and the company, the NMDC should not unnecessarily be dragged into the picture of the disputes between the parties to the lis. The Arbitrator is empowered to adjudicate this issue as well.

¶144

¶145

Therefore, for all the manifold reasons, I deem it

¶146

appropriate to refer the dispute between the BHEL and the company in both these petitions to a sole Arbitrator, a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

¶147

Sri Justice V.Gopala Gowda, Office at No.4, 3^rd Floor, Apollo White Dental Clinic Building, 80 Feet Main Road, Near Police Station, R.T.Nagar, Ganganagar, Bengaluru - 560 032 (Mobile: 8826334009).

¶148

For the reasons aforesaid, I pass the following:

¶149

ORDER

¶150

[a] The petition is allowed, appointing

¶151

Sri Justice V.Gopala Gowda, Office at No.4, 3^rd Floor, Apollo White Dental Clinic Building, 80 Feet Main Road, Near Police Station, R.T.Nagar, Ganganagar, Bengaluru - 560 032 (Mobile: 8826334009), as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the parties and

¶152

conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and

¶153

¶154

Conciliation Centre (Domestic and

¶155

International), Bengaluru, according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶156

[b] All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶157

[c] The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and Sri Justice V.Gopala Gowda, Office at No.4, 3^rd Floor, Apollo White Dental Clinic Building, 80 Feet Main Road, Near Police Station, R.T.Nagar, Ganganagar, Bengaluru - 560 032 (Mobile: 8826334009), as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶158

Sd/- JUDGE

¶159

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/S Prasad and Company (Project Works)Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. M/S Prasad and Company (Project Works)Ltd

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

Umesh Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Itc Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Acchangi Mahesh Vs the Chief Secretary

H T Muddappa Vs the Commissioner

Miss Navya P Acharya Vs Municipal Commissioner

Snowman Logistics Limited Vs Saffron Global