Disposed

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024COMAP/96/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A commercial appeal over an order on an application in a Section 34 arbitration petition was settled by the appellant and first respondent under the Vivad se Vishwas II scheme via a joint memo. The court disposed of the appeal per the memo; the pending interlocutory application was disposed as not surviving.

What the court decided

AI extract

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited Vs Mangalore Refinery… — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2023

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

TOYO ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: TOYO HOUSE, L.B.S. MARG, KANJURMARG (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 078.

¶12

AND OTHER OFFICE AT TOYO TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, 71, KANJUR VILLAGE ROAD, KANJURMARG (EAST), Digitally signed by HARIKRISHNA V MUMBAI - 400 042, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED Location: HIGH COURT OF REPRESENTATIVE, KARNATAKA MR. UMESH DURGADMATH, DY. GENERAL MANAGER-CONTRACTS & LEGAL. …APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. ADITHYA SETHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AVINASH BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶17

COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: MANGALORE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, PERMUDE, MANGALURU - 574 509. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶18

JUSTICE P.V. REDDI, PRESIDING ARBITRATOR, NO.B-12, STONE VALLEY APS ROAD, NO.4, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034.

¶19

JUSTICE SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, ARBITRATOR, NO.254, SPARSH, 18^TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶20

JUSTICE S. VENKATARAMAN, ARBITRATOR, NO.161, 2^ND BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, JUDGES COLONY, BASAWESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, SUNDARSWAMY AND SRI. RAMDAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2023- SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2-R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13 (1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/01/2023 IN COM.A.P.NO.64/2021 PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.NO.87) ALLOWING IA NO.1 IN PART, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS IA NO.1).

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.SOMASHEKAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

In this appeal, the appellant is challenging the impugned

¶29

order dated 10.01.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in Com.A.P.No.64/2021 by the Court below by urging various grounds.

¶30

Sri Avinash Balakrishna, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is present before the Court physically.

¶31

However, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1 submit that the appellant and respondent No.1 have filed a joint memo for having settled the issue emerged in between them and prays to dispose of the appeal in terms of the joint memo. The joint memo reads as under:

¶32

"JOINT MEMO FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND

¶33

RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶34

The Appellant (" TEIPL ") and Respondent No. 1 (" MRPL ") respectfully submit as follows:

¶35

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 10.01.2023 passed on I.A. No. 1 in

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶38

Comm. A.P. No. 64/2021 by the Commercial Court, Bengaluru.

¶39

2. During the pendency of the matter, the Central Government launched the scheme, "Vivad se Vishwas II- (Contractual Disputes)" (" Scheme ") to effectively settle the pending contractual disputes of Government and Government Undertakings. A copy of the Scheme is produced herewith as Document No. 1.

¶40

3. Pursuant to and as per the provisions of the Scheme, the Parties have fully and finally settled their disputes relating to the Contract for project Management Consultant Services dated 16.01.2008 6(" Contract "), the arbitration proceedings arising out of the Contract before the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that culminated in an Arbitral Award dated 30.01.2021 (" Award "), the present proceedings ie., COMAP No. 96 of 2023 (" Appeal "). Comm. A.P. No. 64 of 2021 challenging the Award (" Section 34 Petition ") and Comm. Ex. Pet. No. 213 of 2021 before the Commercial Court in Mangaluru (" Execution Petition "), and all other disputes inter se between the Parties pertaining to or arising out of the Contract.

¶41

4. As per the terms of settlement under the Scheme, the Competent Authority of Respondent No.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶44

1 has approved payment of an amount of INR 57,59,35,483/- (Rupees Fifty-Seven Crores FiftyNine Lakhs Thirty- Five Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-Three only) (" Settlement Amount ") to Appellant in full and final settlement of the disputes with respect to the Contract and all proceedings arising therefrom. Copy of the letter dated 02.02.2024 issued by MRPL to TEIPL is produced herewith as Document No.2.

¶45

5. As per the Scheme, Appellant shall upload documents pertaining to the withdrawal of the Section 34 Petition, the Execution Petition, and the Appeal. After Appellant uploads documents pertaining to the withdrawal of the said three matters, the Parties shall execute a settlement agreement as per the format prescribed by the Scheme. Respondent No. 1 shall release the Settlement Amount to Appellant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of signing of the settlement agreement.

¶46

6. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are formal parties to the present appeal and therefore, are not parties to this memo. Hence, in light of the settlement arrived at between the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, these proceedings against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may be closed.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11939-DB COMAP No. 96 of 2023

¶48

WHEREFORE , it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to receive this memo on record and dispose of the above appeal in terms hereof, in the interest of justice and equity".

¶49

In the last paragraph of the joint memo, it is stated that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are formal parties to the present appeal and therefore, are not parties to this memo. Hence, in the light of the settlement arrived at between the appellant and respondent No.1, these proceedings against respondent Nos.2 to 4 may be closed.

¶50

In terms of the joint memo, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶51

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Toyo Engineering India Private Limited v. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Suresh Mallappa Tangolli Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. B. Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

S Devaraj Vs Hosmat Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Lakshmikar Reddy Vs Sri Anil Kumar Arolikar

Mohankumar Vs B a Jagadish

State of Karnataka Vs Registered Unaided Private Schools Management Association Karnataka Society