The Madras High Court dismissed appeals seeking to set aside an award. The court held the appellant firm lacked legal existence post-reconstitution, the contract rate governed the claim excluding Quantum Meruit, and the claim was time-barred.
All Civil Miscellaneous Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 22.12.2017
DELIVERED ON : 19.06.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1427 to 1429 of 2016 & C.M.A.(MD)Nos.333 to 335 of 2017
M/s.Jaya Engineering Works, A Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner, K.T.Ramakrishnan, D.No.36, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi, Trichy. ... Appellant/1st Respondent
in all CMA's
Vs.
2.R.Vittal ... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
in all CMA's
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 39 of Arbitration Act, 1940, to set aside the order passed in Arbitration O.P.No.5,6,7,22,23,24 of 2014 respectively dated 24.03.2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy and to set aside the same.
(in all C.M.As.) For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran For R-1 : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, for Mr.K.Prabhakar.
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
The appellant in these appeals is M/s.Jaya Engineering Works, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A Partnership Firm, Represented by its Managing Partner, Thiru.K.T.Ramakrishnan, D.No.36, Developed Plot Estate, Thuvakudi,
2
Trichy. The said firm was an ancillary unit under Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy. It was involved in doing fabrication works on contract basis with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited for the years 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1991-1992. In fact the said firm had been doing works for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited since 1978. But dispute arose with regard to the payments made in respect of the aforesaid three years. Therefore, the arbitration proceedings were initiated. The arbitration proceedings after a long and chequered history culminated in an award dated 22.11.2013 in favour of the appellant firm. To set aside the said award, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited filed Arbitration O.P.Nos.5,6 and 7 of 2014 before the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli. The proceedings were under the old Arbitration Act, 1940. Therefore, to pass a decree in terms of the award, the appellant filed Arbitration O.P.Nos.22, 23 and 24 of 2014. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruchirappalli, by the impugned common order dated 24.03.2015, allowed the applications filed by Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, by setting aside the impugned award and dismissed the applications filed by the appellant firm. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed.
3
question. These aspects have been dealt with in considerable detail by the lower Court in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the impugned order. It clearly shows that a non existing firm has chosen to continue the arbitration proceedings and also filed the present appeals.
4
not produce the bank statement, adverse inference was also rightly drawn against him. There is one more circumstance that goes against the claimant. The dispute pertained to the period from 1989 to 1992. The claim itself was made only on 09.01.1995. Thus, the claims in respect of the first two years are also barred by limitation.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(AS)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
pmu AE/SKN RSK/SAR1/02.07.2018/4P/7C
COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.M.A.(MD).Nos.1427 to 1429 of 2016 & C.M.A.(MD)Nos.333 to 335 of 2017 19.06.2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant firm, which ceased to exist due to reconstitution and transfer of rights, had locus standi to contest the arbitration proceedings.
Whether the principle of Quantum Meruit could be applied when a contract covering the transaction already existed between the parties.
Whether the arbitration award was valid considering the claims were time-barred and the claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2010) 4 C.T.C. 58 (Shree Gomathy Shankar Transports V. The State of Karnataka)Distinguished¶7
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Jaya Engineering Works
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
R.Vittal
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
