Allowed

Sri Raghurama Uppangala v. the Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CMP/360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a PWD contractor, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator regarding a Rs. 138 crore work order. The petitioners cited a Rs. 1 crore threshold for arbitration disputes, arguing their claim and contract value exceeded it, thus making arbitration applicable.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration proceedings initiated by appointing Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole as the sole arbitrator.

Sri Raghurama Uppangala Vs the Executive Engineer — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.360/2022

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI RAGHURAMA UPPANGALA S/O KRISHNA BHAT AGED 56 YEARS PWD CLASS I CONTRACTOR AND SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S AISHWARYA EARTH MOVERS OFFICE AT PANDITH DEENA DAYALU MARGA, KARMALA PUTTUR D K 574 201.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. ANANDARAMA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MANGALORE DIVISION MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶12

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASASOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS (By SRI.G.M. CHANDRASHEKAR.,AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 24 OF THE CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT OF THE TENDER DOCUMENTS DATED 30.03.2015 (ANNEXURE-A) TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND DETERMINE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARISING UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is issued with the ' Work Order' dated 30.03.2015 by the respondents for construction of a bridge across Kumaradhara river at Shanthimogaru, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. The Work Order is for a sum of Rs.13,81,45,034.33. The conditions of the contract, which is part of the Work Order, contemplate resolution of all the disputes by arbitration but with an exception insofar as the Work for a certain value. The petitioner has issued legal notice dated 07.01.2022 raising a dispute for a total sum of Rs.1,37,85,881/-

¶19

¶20

and invoking arbitration clause nominating a learned Member of the Bar in Mangalore as the sole arbitrator.

¶21

Sri.G.M.Chandrashekar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, was contending that the arbitration clause would not apply if the value of the Work is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- and had drawn this Court’s attention to paragraph 24.1 of the Conditions of Contract appended to the Work Order which reads as under:

¶22

"24.1 Arbitration Clause will not be applicable wherever the value of the work is than Rs.100 lakh".

¶23

In response, Sri Anandarama K., the learned

¶24

counsel for the petitioner, has filed a memo along with the Government Order dated 14.10.2008 on modification of the conditions for standard tender documents, and he submits that it is clarified that the

¶25

¶26

arbitration clause will not apply where the value of the work entrusted is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

¶27

Perused the Government Order, and this would overwhelm any objection because of a possible error in recording the arbitration clause as aforesaid because the value of the Work and the petitioner's claim are more than Rs.1,00,00,000/. At this stage, the learned counsel for the parties submit that a retired District Judge could be appointed as the sole arbitrator and this Court is of the view that Sri.Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, a retired District Judge and a retired Judicial Member of KSAT, could be appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute. Hence, the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(a) The petition is allowed.

¶30

¶31

(b) Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, Nayarmoole Post, Manila Village, Bantwal Taluk, Vittala, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 243, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. The learned arbitrator shall be at liberty to decide on the venue at Mangalore and the procedure for arbitration if the parties fail to agree on such procedure.

¶32

[c] The Registry is directed to

¶33

communicate this order to Sri. Moosa Kunhi Nayarmoole, Nayarmoole Post, Manila Village, Bantwal Taluk, Vittal, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 243.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SA/Ct:sr

Sri Raghurama Uppangala v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raghurama Uppangala v. the Executive Engineer

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

Smt D K Vinoda Kumari Vs Shri K Venkatesh

Smt K M Manjula Vs Smt K M Prabhamani

The Deputy Director, Vs M/S Republic Saw Mill

Sri Chandrappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri M Nagendra Vs M/S Domlur Club

Smt. Janakamani Vs Smt. Kempamma