Disposed

Shri K Kiran Kumar v. Union of India

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CMP/318/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court directed the General Manager, South Western Railway, to constitute an arbitral tribunal within 30 days following a specific procedure outlined in the General Conditions of Contract, citing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the General Manager to send a panel of retired Railway Arbitrators and clarify the procedure under Section 64(3)(b) of GCC for appointing the tribunal.

Shri K Kiran Kumar Vs Union of India — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.318/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Shri. K. Kiran Kumar S/o (Late) K. Ravindra Naidu C/o. K. Chenchaiah Naidu 3-6-362, Settigunta Road, Vengamamba Centre, Lakshmipuram, Nellore-524 002.

¶9

... Petitioner (By Sri. Harischandra Reddy P, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

UNION OF INDIA represented by

¶12

The Chief Administrative Officer Construction, South Western Railway, 18 Millers Road, Bengaluru-560 046.

¶13

The General Manager, 3^rd Floor East Wing,

¶14

South Western Railway Gadag Road, Hubli-580 020.

¶15

The Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/West, South Western Railway,

¶16

¶17

18 Millers Road, Bengaluru-560 046. Co-Arbitrator.

¶18

T.V. Bhushan Senior Division Co-Ordination Officer, Division Railway Manager Office South Western Railway, Hubbali-580 023. Presiding Arbitrator.

¶19

P. Mahender, Dy. CE, TS, Head Quarters, Hubballi, South Western Railway Gadag Road, Hubbali-580 020. Co-Arbitrator.

¶20

K. Abishekananda Rao, Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Secunderabad Division, 3^rd Floor, Sanchalan Bhavan, South Central Railway-500 026. Co-Arbitrator.

¶21

(By. Sri. Abhinay Y.T, Advocate)

¶22

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) & (8) r/w Sections 12, 14 & 15(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with the Rules framed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in notification No.LCA/1/402/1996 dated 13/11/1996 praying to pass an appropriate order by terminating the existing arbitral tribunal for appointment of independent and impartial Arbitrators in the place of 4^th to 6^th respondents as per the petitioner requests under the provisions of section 11(6) sub section (a) and (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Amended Act 2015 (3 of 2016) to adjudicate the disputes/claims between the parties as pr contract agreement dated 23.11.1998 vide Annexure-P1 and to

¶23

¶24

pass an appropriate order as per Section 64(iii) of GCC and also amended act 2015 (3 of 2016) by appointing independent and impartial arbitrators under Section 11(8) of the act for settlement of disputes/ claims between the parties as per the conditions of contract and etc.,

¶25

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has sought for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the dispute that has arisen amongst the parties.

¶28

It is submitted that the petitioner was entrusted with work relating to Bangalore-Hassan New BG Line – Earth Work and Minor Bridges from Ch.10500 to 16000 (SBC Reach III – best Chikbanavar – Nelamangala).

¶29

It is submitted that as regards to the chain

¶30

work order, the petitioner was the successful bidder. However, it is submitted that there were disputes

¶31

¶32

relating to the entitlement of the petitioner for the work done.

¶33

Sri.Abhinay.Y.T has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

¶34

Though various contentions have been

¶35

raised, both the learned counsel submit that matter could be disposed off taking note of the observations made in CMP No.137/2018 disposed of on 30.09.2020.

¶36

The petitioner has sought for appointment of an arbitrator by relying upon the General Conditions of Contract which is construed to be part of the work order.

¶37

It is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

¶38

Court in the case of Central Organisation for

¶39

Railway Electrification v/s ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML

¶40

¶41

(JV) A Joint Venture Company reported in (2019)

¶42

SCC Online Sc 1635 that governs appointment of arbitrator as regards the present factual matrix also. In light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in particular with respect to adherence to the procedure in terms of Section 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract and taking note of the directions of Apex Court, the second respondent General Manager, South Western Railway is required to send a panel of at least names of retired Railway Arbitrators to the contractor within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Thereafter the petitioner contractor is required to exercise his choice of suggesting two names as his nominees within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the General Manager will appoint at least one as contractor’s nominee and the General Manager will exercise his choice by nominating the balance number

¶43

¶44

of Arbitrators indicating the name of Presiding Arbitrator from amongst the three Arbitrators so appointed. The General Manager is to complete the exercise of constituting Arbitral Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of names of contractor’s nominees.

¶45

Accordingly, in light of consent of both the

¶46

parties, the petition is disposed off in light of the directions made above clarifying that the procedure under Section 64(3)(b) of the General Conditions of Contract to be adhered to while constituting the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶47

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

¶48

It is to be observed that as the matter relates to the year 2017 and petitioner submits that his entitlement is as regards 2006, and hence the

¶49

¶50

arbitrator to endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

¶51

It is also undertaken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that all original records with the previous arbitral tribunal to be transferred to the newly constituted tribunal.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Shri K Kiran Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri K Kiran Kumar v. Union of India

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

Demag Cranes and Components (India) Private Limited Vs G D India Private Limited

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Official Liquidator Vs Nil

Sri S T Papareddy Vs M/S Sands Infratech Developers India Private Limited

M/S. Spookfish Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hitech Systems and Services Limited

Sri N S Prakash @ Prakash Nama Vs M/S. White Oak Realty Partners