Dismissed

Rpn Engineers Chennai Private v. The Union of India

Madras HC5 Jul 2017OP/91/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought termination of an arbitration tribunal's mandate under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act due to alleged delays. The Court noted an award was passed on 10.02.2017, just before admission, and dismissed the petition as unnecessary. Petitioner may challenge the award under Section 34.

What did the court decide?

No termination of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and no appointment of an independent arbitrator.

Rpn Engineers Chennai Private Vs The Union of India — Arbitration | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 05.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P.NO.91 OF 2017

¶7

RPN Engineers Chennai Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, M-60, 9th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 600 102. Petitioner Vs 1. The Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai -3.

¶8

The Deputy Chief Engineer-I (Construction), Southern Railway, Near My Lady's Garden, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3.

¶9

Mr. K. Ramasubramonia Pillai (Presiding Arbitrator), The Deputy Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway, Head-Quarters, Chennai-3. 4. Mr. P. Mani (Arbitrator), The Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/G/CN, Southern Railway (Construction), Egmore, Chennai-8. 5. Mr. R. Amalraj (Arbitrator), The Deputy Chief Engineer (Works), Southern Railway (Construction), Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Respondents

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

Petition filed under Section 14, 15 r/w.Sec-15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to terminate the mandate of the present Tribunal (comprising of the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents) and appoint an independent Arbitrator to arbitrate all the claims arising out of the Agreement No.72/Dy.CE/CN/MAS/2012 dated 21.3.2012 to Arbitration.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti

¶14

For Respondent: Mr.T. Ramkumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Petition is filed praying for termination of the mandate of the present Tribunal (comprising of 3rd, 4th and 5th respondents) and appointment

¶17

of an independant Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the claims arising out of

¶18

Agreement No. No.72/Dy.CE/CN/MAS/2012 dated 21.3.2012.

¶19

The petitioner filed original petition in O.P.No.595 of 2015, that

¶20

was ordered by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2015 referring the issues to a panel of Arbitrators stating that the Arbitral Tribunal will endeavour to conclude the arbitration proceedings, preferably within a period of six months from the first date of sitting after the reference was made.

¶21

The case of the petitioner now is that the Arbitral Tribunal has

¶22

defaulted in carrying out the mandate imposed upon it by this Court vide order dated 9.10.2015, in so far as the proceedings have been completed only on

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

20.2.2017, that too, after the present Original Petition was filed. It was pointed out that the first sitting was on 24.3.2016 and as such the award ought to have been passed within six months therefrom.

¶26

Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there were serious delays on the part of the Tribunal in the disposal of the matter. In all, the attempt was to pursuade the Court to terminate the mandate of the constituted Tribunal as per order dated 9.10.2015 and appoint an independent arbitrator afresh to arbitrate upon the claims arising between the parties.

¶27

In response, Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, would point out that in so far as the award has been passed on 20.2.2017, nothing further survives in this petition. If at all any remedy is available to the petitioner, it is only by way of challenge to the Award dated 20.2.2017 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (in short Áct'). He would further point out that the Award passed was partly in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner has recieved the amounts awarded to him in terms of Award dated 20.2.2017.

¶28

Heard learned counsel.

¶29

Sub Section (1) of Section 29A of the Act provides for a period

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

of 12 months from the date of entering reference for the passing of an award. The period of 12 months in this case, expires on 12.3.2016. That apart, when this petition came up for admission on 27.1.2017, it has been noticed that the award was imminent and it has, in fact, been passed on 10.2.2017. Though the extension of 6 months provided under section 29A(2) is only upon consent of parties, it is a fact that the award has not been duly passed, but that the petitioner has enjoyed the part relief provided under thereunder. The petitioner is at liberty, if he chooses to challenge the award under section 34 of the Act, in

¶33

so far as it adverse to him in accordance with law.
8. This Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
05.07.2017
Speaking Order/non-speaking order
Index:yes/No
msr
Note:
Extension of time is one week for remitting
cost memo if not already filed.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.

¶37

msr
O.P.NO.91 OF 2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

¶40

05.07.2017

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

Rpn Engineers Chennai Private v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rpn Engineers Chennai Private v. The Union of India

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

M/s.Bharat Motors Ltd. Vs Ashok Leyland Limited

Between Sri Venkateswara Vs The Chief Engineer

M/s.Electornica Finance Ltd. Vs M/s.Sree Veltech Industru

Mr.M.Ethiraj Vs M/a.Shinago Holdings Private

Delvin Formulations Pvt.Ltd., Vs Peekay Medi Equip Ltd.

Mr.P.Parivallal Vs Sundaram Finance Limited