Allowed

Tejas Networks Limited v. Bgr Energy Systems Limited

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CMP/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause contained in a settlement letter dated August 20, 2022. The court found a valid arbitration agreement and a subsisting dispute, allowing the petition and appointing the requested arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Justice Mr. B. Veerappa as Sole Arbitrator.

Tejas Networks Limited Vs Bgr Energy Systems Limited — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 18 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED PLOT NO. 25, 5TH FLOOR J.P SOFT WARE PARK ELECTRONIC CITY PHSE 1 HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100 RERPESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. N. R RAVIKRISHNAN

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED 443 ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET CHENNAI 600 018 [email protected] REPRESENTD BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THE CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(5) R/W SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO A) APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR WITH DIRECTION TO ENTER REFERENCE IN TERMS OF CLAUSE OF SETTLEMENT LETTER DATED 20/08/2022 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND AS PER THE ARBITRATION NOTICE DATED 01/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER AS AT ANNEXURE-C AND ADJUDICATE THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶18

DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(5) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and has sought for appointment of sole Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause as found in the Settlement Letter dated 20.08.2022 vide Annexure-A.

¶22

The facts that are made out are that the petitioner was founded in the year 2000 and is one of the foremost company in the telecommunication sector, designs, develops and sells networking products to telecommunications service providers, internet service providers, utility companies etc. Respondent is a company carrying on business in supplying systems and equipments. The petitioner supplied products and provided service to the respondent. Inspite of repeated follow-ups and reminders, the respondent failed to make payments to

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶25

the petitioner for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner approached MSME Facilitation Council for recovery of amount from the respondents. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Arbitration. In the Arbitration proceedings, the matter was settled and in case of violation of any conditions of the settlement, the parties can seek for appointment of arbitrator. As there was dispute, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the matter was referred to the arbitration and in the arbitration proceedings, the matter was settled between the parties and if in case of violation of any conditions in the settlement, the aggrieved person can seek for appointment of arbitrator. As per the letter of settlement dated 20.08.2022 addressed by the respondent vide Annexure-A, the arbitration clause reads as under:

¶27

“ Both parties agree that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the present letter shall be finally resolved by arbitration. The said arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration &

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶30

Conciliation Act, 1996 for the time being in force. The seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Bengaluru. The tribunal shall consist of a sole arbitrator mutually appointed by the parties. The award of a sole arbitrator shall be binding on the parties.

¶31

In light of the above, you are request to kindly accept the payment disbursement plan in the interest of mutual and amicable settlement. Further, based on this letter Tejas will withdraw the captioned case and file this letter with the arbitration center.”

¶32

Pursuant to the settlement letter dated 20.08.2022 addressed by the respondent, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent as per Annexure-C for appointment of Hon’ble Justice B.Veerappa, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka as Sole Arbitrator. The respondent has not replied to the notice issued by the petitioner. As there is no concurrence regarding the appointment of Arbitrator, the petitioner was constrained to file this petition.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶35

Respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

Taking note of the clause in the settlement letter dated 20.08.2022 at Annexure-A, which provides for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration and taking note of the dispute as detailed in the notice issued by the petitioner at Annexures-'C', it is clear that there is a clause providing for arbitration and resolution of disputes. There exists a dispute as detailed in the notice and accordingly, a case is made out for allowing the petition. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶38

a) The petition is petition is allowed.

¶39

b) Hon’ble Justice Mr.B.Veerappa, Retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case in the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:18976 CMP No. 18 of 2024

¶42

c) All the contentions of the parties in respect jurisdiction and maintainability are kept open to be considered by the Arbitrator.

¶43

d) A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru, for proceeding further in the matter.

¶44

e) Registry is directed to return all original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Tejas Networks Limited v. Bgr Energy Systems Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Networks Limited v. Bgr Energy Systems Limited

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

M/S Shri Lakshmi Marketing Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri M K Ramachandra Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kishore P S Vs Smt Meghana T M

Sri Gala Hanumaiah Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma @ Rathna Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Shwetha S Vs Sri Gururaju B