Allowed

M/S.Quality Constructions v. Project Engineering Company Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Sept 2012AR/58/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment appoints Justice K.K.Usha of the same court as the sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between a construction company and several engineering and arbitration council respondents under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice K.K.Usha, Former Chief Justice of this Court, as Arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties.

M/S.Quality Constructions Vs Project Engineering Company Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/21ST BHADRA 1934

¶5

AR.No. 58 of 2010 ( )

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

M/S.QUALITY CONSTRUCTIONS SREERANGAM BUILDINGS, PUTHENCHIRA PO CHAVARA,KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MEIJO KURIAN PUVATHINGAL SMT.PREMY MEIJO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. M/S.KERALA PROJECT ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD, PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. PROJECT ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD HAVING OFFICE AT 901, PIONEER TOWERS, MARINE DRIVE SHANKUGHAM ROAD,KOCHI.

¶11

2. INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION FEDERATION HOUSE, TANSEN MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶12

ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

ADDL.R3. KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD.

¶14

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 2.12.11 IN IA.25/11

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON BY ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA BY ADV. SRI.PRINSUN PHILIP BY ADV. SMT.J.SURYA

¶16

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2012, ALONG WITH AR. 9/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK

¶17

AR.No. 58 of 2010 ( )

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A-1. COPY OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE AS PROVIDED IN THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT VIDE ARTICLE – 10 - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER 2005.

¶21

ANNEXURE A-11. REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT 1.C.A. ALONG WITH THE REGISTRATION FEES DATED 6.07.2008.

¶22

ANNEXURE A-III. PETITIONER NOMINATING THEIR NOMINEE ARBITRATOR AT THE REQUEST OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT I.C.A. DATED 28TH JANUARY 2010.

¶23

ANNEXURE A-IV. CONSENT LETTER FURNISHED BY THE NOMINATED ARBITRATOR DATED 28TH JANUARY 2010.

¶24

ANNEXURE A-V. LETTER FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12TH MARCH 2010 DISCLOSING THEIR INABILITY TO PROEED WITH THE MATTER BECAUSE OF THE NON RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT AS WELL AS NON PAYMENT OF THE PRESCRIBED FEES BY BOTH THE ARTICLES.

¶25

ANNEXURE-VI. LETTER NO.DSL/2006/35 DATED 22.11.2006 FROM THE CLAIMANT / PETITIONER TO THE OWNER M/S KMML SEEKING THEIR INTERVENTION FOR AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE OF INADEQUACY IN THE PAYMENTS DUE TOWARDS THE VALUE OF WORKS DONE.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶31

AR.NOs. 58/2010 & 9/2011

¶32

--------------------------------------------------

¶33

--------------------------------------------------

¶34

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2012

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

These are applications filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the respective applicants and the respondents.

¶37

To the extent it is relevant, the case is that M/s. Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd., a Government of Kerala undertaking, awarded a tender for the setting up of an Desalination Plant to the respondent in A.R.No.9/2011, M/s. Dhoshion Ltd.,. M/s. Dhoshion Ltd., awarded civil works in the project to M/s. Kerala Project Engineering Company Ltd. M/s. Kerala Project Engineering Company Ltd., appointed M/s. Quality Constructions as its sub contractor.

¶38

It appears that at a later point of time the work has discontinued, the reasons of which are not relevant in this context. Thereupon M/s. Kerala Project Engineering Ltd., raised disputes against their principal M/s.Dhishion Ltd. and M./s. Quality

¶39

AR.Nos.58/2010 & 9/2011

¶40

:2 :

¶41

Constructions raised disputes against their principal M/s. Project Engineering company Ltd.,.These disputes are still not settled. Agreements between the parties provided for resolution of disputes by way of arbitration. Appointment of the Arbitrator was sought for and that also did not materialise. It is thereupon that these applications are filed.

¶42

I heard the counsel appearing for the parties.

¶43

There was no dispute before this court regarding the requirement of appointing an Arbitrator and the debate in effect was regarding the choice of the Arbitrator. After deliberating on the issue at length, this court appoints Justice K.K.Usha, Former Chief Justice of this Court as Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

¶44

Arbitration Requests are disposed of accordingly.

¶45

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶46

vi/

¶47

AR.Nos.58/2010 & 9/2011

¶48

:3 :

M/S.Quality Constructions v. Project Engineering Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Quality Constructions v. Project Engineering Company Ltd.

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

O.K.Ramadas Vs the Palakkad Municipality

Annie Vs the State of Kerala and Others

A.M.Distributor Vs the Intelligence Inspector

Veenus Traders Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

M/S.Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Seema.K Vs the Authorised Officer