High Court of Kerala recalled an order appointing an arbitrator because the applicant contractor's grievance regarding deductions was found to be a statutory liability to pay cess, creating no arbitrable dispute.
Arbitration appointment order dated 07/11/2012 recalled; Review Petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934
RP.No. 82 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AR.33/2012 DATED 07/11/2012.
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE ENGINEER - IN – CHIEF, ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S BRANCH, CONTRACT MANAGEMENT – E8, ARMY HEAD QUARTERS, KASHMIR HOUSE, DHQ P.O., NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (N.W), NAVAL WORKS - MES, KATARIBAUGH, NAVAL BASE POST, COCHIN-682 004.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC.
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
KURIAN AND VARGHESE, ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS THACHAMPURATH, MULANTHURUTHY-682 314, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MEIJO KURIAN PUVATHINGAL.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
RP.No. 82 of 2013 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-
| ANNEXURE A1 | COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE IAFW 2249. |
|---|---|
| ANNEXURE A2 | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 10520/2004 DATED 19/01/2005. |
| ANNEXURE A3 | COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN 2011(2) ARB. LR 105 SC. |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
R.P.82/2013 in A.R.33/2012
.............................................. Dated this the 13th day of February, 2013
ORDER
Arb. LR (SC) 105) . That was a case where Union of India relied on a certificate of discharge issued by the Contractor. Taking note of the facts of the case, the Apex Court finally held
2
R.P.82/13
that the claim made by the contractor lacked genuineness and on that ground, interfered with an order appointing the arbitrator.
R.P.82/13
3
4
R.P.82/13
compliance with the Labour Commissioner's letter dated 21.1.2011. The contractor's liability is statutory and they have no case that the amount recovered is in excess of what was payable. If so, by the recovery in question what has been done by the review petitioner was only to discharge the statutory liability of the contractor.
Review Petition is allowed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mrcs
/true copy/
sd/- P.A. To Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there exists an arbitrable dispute when the recovery claimed by the employer was for statutory cess payable under the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act.
Whether the arbitration order appointing an arbitrator should be reviewed in view of the absence of a genuine dispute under the relevant contract and statutory obligations.
Whether the amounts deducted from the interim bill by the employer relate to taxable dues or excess deduction of contract amount.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India and Ors. v. Master Construction Co.Referred¶30
Union of India and Ors. v. Master Construction Co. (2011 (2) Arb. LR (SC) 105)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Engineer - In - Chief
Kurien and Varghese
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
