Allowed

Emvee Photovoltaic Power Pvt. Ltd. v. B G Chinnappa

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2023CMP/74/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court appointed a sole arbitrator, dismissing objections regarding limitation and tampering with the agreement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ajit J Gunjal as the Sole Arbitrator to conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru.

Emvee Photovoltaic Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs B G Chinnappa — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 74 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

EMVEE PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER PVT LTD NO 13/1, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ROAD, BETTAHALASUR POST, BANGALORE 562157 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SUBRAT KUMAR BEURA.

¶7

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 55, SOLAR TOWER, 6TH MAIN, 11TH CROSS LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU 560024.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SMT. POONAM PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

B G CHINNAPPA S/O SH. GURUSIDDAPPA, AGE MAJOR, NO 135/A-35, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIV NAGAR, BANGALORE 560080.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. MUJTABA H.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶16

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 (6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 R/W PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SCHEME, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE EXISTING DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.11.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE B AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, and Ms. Poonam Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. H Mujtaba, the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard for final disposal. The petitioner relies upon the agreement for arbitration in the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Agreement dated 24.11.2012 and Letter of Undertaking dated 16.05.2013 in support of the prayer for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶22

The petitioner's case is that it has extended certain services to the petitioner in execution of certain Solar PV Power Project on terms and as of 16.05.2013, a sum in excess of Rs.28 Crores remained due, and as such, the Letter of Undertaking and Deed of Hypothecation of even date are executed acknowledging the liability and hypothecating certain assets. The petitioner's further case is that it has received payments due to it for power generated and supplied to Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited until the date of commencement of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for short, ‘Act of 1996’ ] and the simultaneous invocation of the agreement for arbitration.

¶23

As against this case, the respondent, who has not issued any reply to the arbitration notice dated 07.11.2022, contends that the petitioner's claim for money is time barred and the payment

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶26

terms appended to the said Agreement dated 24.11.2012 have been altered, and Sri. Mujtaba H, the learned counsel for the respondent, submits that objections are filed in these lines in the pending application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. The thrust of the submissions in this regard is that this Court must not appoint a sole Arbitrator because the petitioner's claim is time barred.

¶27

However, in the light of the material on record as of now and the petitioner’s case that the respondent has continued to receive amount payable to it under the Agreement dated 24.11.2012 until the date of the commencement of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 and even thereafter for some time, this Court cannot opine that the petitioner's claim is ex facie time barred. Similarly, this Court is also not persuaded to opine that the application must be rejected on grounds of the allegations of tampering of the Agreement because

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶30

this question will have to be decided in the arbitration proceedings. Hence, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on who could be appointed as sole Arbitrator, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

[a] The petition is allowed.

¶33

[b] Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ajit J

¶34

Gunjal, a former Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute

¶35

between the petitioner and the respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre

¶36

(Domestic and International), Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Centre.

¶37

[c] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through E-mail] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:30585 CMP No. 74 of 2023

¶40

(Domestic and International), Bengaluru and the Hon'ble Sri. Justice Ajit J Gunjal, a former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Address: # 95, ‘Laxmi Kunj’, 7^th Main, MCR Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru– 560 040 [email:[email protected]] as required under the Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Scheme, 1996.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

AN/-

Emvee Photovoltaic Power Pvt. Ltd. v. B G Chinnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Emvee Photovoltaic Power Pvt. Ltd. v. B G Chinnappa

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

Mr Gurinder P Singh Dhall Vs Anheuser Bush Inbev India Ltd.

Bmm Ispat Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Renew Surya Roshni Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kids Clinic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Sadiq Salman

Sri. C. Chikkegowda Vs Smt. a. S. Lakshmamma

Sri Sri H H Vidya Prasanna Theetha Swamiji Vs Sri Subramanya Gram Panchayat