M/S. Kmv Projects Vs the State Project Director

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:2036 CMP No. 261 of 2024

¶2

1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. KMV PROJECTS NO. 8-3-948/949 LEVEL-4, SOLITAIRE PLAZA BESIDE IMAGE HOSPITAL AMEERPET, HYDERABAD-500 073. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI. TARANATH

¶9

ALSO AT REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 302 3RD FLOOR, EAST PARK ROAD KUMARA PARK (E) BENGALURU-560 020.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

¶12

(BY SRI. ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE PROJECT DIRECTOR RASHTRIYA MADHYAMIKA SHIKSHA ABHIYA (RMSA) NEW PUBLIC OFFICES PREMISES NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, K R ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. HANAMANTHRAYA LAGALI, AGA)

¶17

THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, R/W

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2036 CMP No. 261 of 2024

¶19

NOTIFICATION NO.LCA/I/402/1996 DATED 13.11.1996 OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRAYING TO APPOINT SRI. ASHOK B. HINCHAGIRI (RETIRED) HIGH COURT JUDGE OR ANY OTHER RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGE, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.05.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE ABOVE MATTER IN PURSUANCE OF CLAUSE NO.24 OF GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AND READ WITH CLAUSE NO.4 OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation At, 1996 (for short "the Act") seeking to resolve the disputes between the parties in terms of the agreement dated 15.05.2013 evidenced at Annexure-A.

¶24

The respondent/State was notified and is represented by learned AGA.

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶26

asserting that the respondent/State has failed to settle the pending bills related to the contractual work undertaken.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2036 CMP No. 261 of 2024

¶28

To address this issue, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 27.03.2024, which is annexed as Annexure-B. Through this notice, the petitioner formally called upon the respondent to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs.1,65,13,174/- along with interest calculated at 18% per annum. The legal notice further intimated the respondent that failure to comply with the demand would compel the petitioner to invoke the arbitration mechanism prescribed under Clause 24 of the General Conditions of Contract and Clause 4 of the Special Conditions of Contract. In accordance with the arbitration clauses, the petitioner also proposed the names of two arbitrators to act as the sole arbitrator for the resolution of the dispute.

¶29

Despite the petitioner serving the legal notice

¶30

on the respondent/State, there has been no response or action on the part of the respondent to address the claims raised or to engage in discussions regarding the proposed arbitration. The respondent's inaction in this regard

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2036 CMP No. 261 of 2024

¶32

highlights a lack of compliance with the terms stipulated under the contractual agreement.

¶33

Although the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the respondent sought time to file a statement of objections, the records indicate that the matter has already been adjourned on at least three prior occasions. In light of the circumstances and upon a detailed examination of the documents submitted along with the petition, this Court finds sufficient grounds to conclude that there exists a valid and binding arbitration clause within the agreement, as evidenced by Annexure-B. The petitioner has appropriately invoked this clause and has met all the procedural prerequisites as outlined under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to seek the appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of the dispute.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:2036 CMP No. 261 of 2024

¶36

In the light of the aforesaid clause of arbitration

¶37

and the contentions advanced by the petitioner, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed appointing Shri. Justice Anand Byra Reddy, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka, as the sole Arbitrator to enter reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and conduct proceedings at the Arbitration and Concilliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru, according to the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

¶40

(ii) All contentions inter se parties are left open for adjudication in the arbitration proceedings.

¶41

(iii) The Office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre and to Shri.Justice Anand Byra Reddy, Former Judge, as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre Rules, 2012.

¶42

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶43

ALB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

M/S. Kmv Projects v. the State Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kmv Projects v. the State Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Yogesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Kavitha K H Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahendra Mishra Vs Mrs. Annabelle Fernandes

Young Mens Christian Association Vs M/S M R P Home Inn (P) Ltd.

M/S. Hiveloop Technology Private Limited Vs M/S. Clomoso Technologies Private Limited