M/S CORE4 Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India

M/S CORE4 ENGINEERS PVT LTD., NO.12, 1ST FLOOR, K-BLOCK, NEAR NEW LAW COURT, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU-570 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. BAPAT SAMPATH VINAYAKA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUTTANI-RENIGUNTA HIGHWAY, NGO ANNEXE, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-600 003.

¶16

SR. DEN/WEST/PGT, DRM OFFICE, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-KOZHIKODE HIGHWAY, KALLEKKULANGARA,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28320 CMP No. 644 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 002.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR, CGC)

¶23

THIS CMP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR UNDER SECTION 11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 AND INVOKING CLAUSE 64 FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE THAT HAS ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE LOA AT ANNEXURE A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner asserts that it is justified in raising a claim because of the termination of a Works Contract, and the petitioner asserts that this termination is although the petitioner was ready to begin the work, but the respondents could not hand over the site. Sri Bampat Sampath Vinayaka Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasizing the

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:28320 CMP No. 644 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

same submits that the petitioner’s claim is not only for illegal termination but also for encashment of Bank Guarantee.

¶31

Sri Shivakumar, the learned Central

¶32

Government Counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner’s claim would come under the ‘ Accepted Category’ , but the learned counsel cannot dispute that this will also be within the reference for a decision by the Arbitral Tribunal. When queried on the consensus on who could enter reference to the dispute, the parties concur with the appointment of Sri D R Venkatasudarshan, a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator who could enter reference of the dispute at the Arbitration and Conciliation Center [Domestic and International], Bengaluru. Hence, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[A] The petition is allowed, and Sri D R

¶35

Venkatasudarshan, a retired District

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:28320 CMP No. 644 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to enter reference of the dispute between the petitioner and

¶40

respondents and conduct the proceeding at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru according to the Rules governing the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru.

¶41

[B] The Registry is directed to communicate this order [through email] to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre [Domestic and International], Bengaluru and Shri D R Venkatasudarshan, No.103, ‘Kasthurbha’, 2^nd Floor, Laxmi Paradise Apartment, 11^th Cross, 5^th Main, Laxminarayanapura,

¶42