Disposed¶36

Venku Reddy v. South Western Railway

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025CMP/99/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) arbitration appointment; South Western Railway; Agreement WR/SBC/CIVIL 2021/0040 dated 13.08.2021; Tender 3SBC21; Letter of Award 00912310035049 dated 30.04.2021; GCC clauses 63 & 64; excepted matters; claim Nos. 2, 5, 9 arbitrable; claim Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 non-arbitrable; Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited (2023) 2 SCC 539 applied; panel of four retired officers; Communication dated 25.09.2024; four weeks to choose two arbitrator names; High Court of Karnataka; Justice B M Shyam Prasad; order dated 10 June 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to communicate its choice of the two names from out of the panel within four weeks from the date of the order; arbitration to proceed in respect of claim Nos. 2, 5 and 9 before the Tribunal constituted in terms of the respondents' Letter dated 25.09.2024.

Venku Reddy Vs South Western Railway — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should adjudicate on the respondents' decision holding claim Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 as excepted matters and therefore not arbitrable. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Applying the test posited by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited, the petitioner cannot succeed in the request that this Court adjudicate on the decision holding the seven claims (Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10) as not arbitrable.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petition cannot be dismissed because there must be arbitration insofar as the three claims (Nos. 2, 5 and 9) held arbitrable even by the respondents, but before the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in terms of the respondents' Letter dated 25.09.2024.

¶35

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to communicate its choice of the two names from out of the panel within four weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Civil Misc. Petition by a proprietor-contractor against South Western Railway concerning Agreement No. WR/SBC/CIVIL 2021/0040 dated 13.08.2021 (Tender No. 3SBC21; Letter of Award No. 00912310035049 dated 30.04.2021; GCC Clauses 63 & 64): of ten claims raised, the respondents held claim Nos. 2, 5 and 9 arbitrable and claim Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 as excepted matters and not arbitrable, and by Communication dated 25.09.2024 furnished a panel of four retired officers calling for two names. Applying the test posited by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited, (2023) 2 SCC 539, the Court declined to adjudicate on the classification of the seven excepted claims, but disposed of the petition holding that arbitration must take place in respect of the three arbitrable claims before the Tribunal constituted in terms of the respondents' Letter dated 25.09.2024, granting the petitioner four weeks to communicate its choice of two names from the panel.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19732 CMP No. 99 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 99 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VENKU REDDY PROPRIETOR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SON OF ANNAMREDDY RAMAMANAREDDY HAVING HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 8-3-833/K-1 TO 8/408, KRISHNA MEADOWS, SRINAGAR COLONY, HYDERABAD-500073. TELANGANA STATE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HARSHITH N BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-560020.

¶15

THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER NORTH BANGALORE DIVISION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE-560023.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY MS. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:19732 CMP No. 99 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT AN ARBITRATION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF THE AGREEMENT NO. WR/SBC/CIVIL 2021/0040 DATED 13.08.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) BEARING TENDER NO. 3SBC21 AND HAVING LETTER OF AWARD BEARING 00912310035049 DATED 30.04.2021 AND THE U/S 63 & 64 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT (ANNEXURE-B) BETWEEB PARTIES HEREIN.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition must be disposed of on a short canvass with most of the facts being undisputed. The petitioner has successfully participated in the process began by the respondent for awarding of contract, and the petitioner is issued with the Letter of Award dated 30.04.2021. The petitioner has raised certain claims which are examined by the concerned Officer

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:19732 CMP No. 99 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

with the respondent to opine that out of ten claims, three claims [ claim Nos.2, 5 and 9 ] would be arbitrable and the other seven claims [ claim Nos.1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 ] are excepted matters and not arbitrable. The respondents, thereafter, have also caused Communication dated 25.09.2024 furnishing a panel of four Retired Officers calling upon the petitioner to suggest two names from such panel for due constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court must adjudicate on the decision to hold seven claims as aforesaid as not being arbitrable, but this Court must opine that the petitioner cannot succeed on this request when the test posited by the Apex Court in ' Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. NCC Limited'¹ is applied. However, the petition cannot be dismissed because there must be arbitration insofar as the three claims

¶31

1 (2023) 2 SCC 539

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:19732 CMP No. 99 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

[ claim Nos.2, 5 and 9 ] that are held to be arbitrable even by the respondents but by the Tribunal which is constituted in terms of the respondents' Letter dated 25.09.2024.

¶36

In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to communicate its choice of the two names from out of the panel within four weeks from today.

¶37

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶38

AN/-

Venku Reddy v. South Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venku Reddy v. South Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

East Point College of Pharmacy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R K R Exports Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Dandakeri Construction Vs Sathish K Shriyan

Mr G H Prakash Vs S Shivakumar

Dr Syamala Reddy Vs Government of India

M/S. Skylit Engineers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs Mysore Rural Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation