Allowed

M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd, Rep.by its Senior Manager (T), v. M/s Balaji Projects, Rep.by its Managing Partner v.Shekar

Madras HC18 Aug 2020A/1668/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a captioned application seeking to bring seven documents on record. The documents, relating to an arbitration proceeding and a bank guarantee, were deemed necessary for arguing jurisdiction and limitation before deciding on the issuance of notice in the main original petition.

What did the court decide?

The seven documents were allowed to be brought on record; notice in the main OP is to be decided subsequently.

M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd, Rep.by its Senior Manager… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

A.No.1668 of 2020 in OP.No.334 of 2020

¶2

A.No.1668 of 2020 in OP.No.334 of 2020

¶3

M.SUNDAR.J.,

¶4

Captioned application has been taken out by the petitioner in the main
'Original Petition' ['OP' for brevity] seeking permission to bring on record
seven documents. Mr.PJ.Rishikesh, learned counsel on record for the
applicant is before me in this web-hearing on a video-conferencing platform.
2. Seven documents, which are now sought to be brought on record as
can be culled out from the judges' summons are as follows:
S.No. Date Description Nature of Document
1. Inter Office Memo from True Copy
K.Manoharaj, AGM EPI,
Bangalore to Shri A.S.Gupta,
Manager (Fin), SRO, Chennai-
Return of EMD to the
Respondent-Reg
2. 19.08.2011 Letter of Mr.A.S.Gupta, True Copy
Manager (Fin) Chennai to AGM,
EPI Bangalore-Cheque dated
19.08.2011 for Rs.7,80,000/- in
favour of the Respondent towards
the return of their EMD-Enclosed.
3. 20.08.2011 Letter of Respondent to AGM of True Copy
Petitioner-Acknowledgment of
refund of EMD
4. 19.08.2011 Acknowledgment sheet of Copy True Copy
of Cheque bearing No.061478-
Signed by Managing Partner of
Respondent

¶5

http://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/4

¶6

A.No.1668 of 2020 in OP.No.334 of 2020

¶7

*S.No.* *Date* *Description* *Nature of Document*
5. 12.05.2012 Letter of the Respondent to the Petitioner requesting return of the Bank Guarantee for Rs.6,50,000/- True Copy
6. 08.06.2012 Acknowledgment of Receipt of Original Bank Guarantee by M/s.Balaji Projects True Copy
7. 11.10.2017 Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the Section 11 Petition filed by the Respondent herein being CMP.No.34 of 017 True Copy 3. The aforesaid tabulation is self-explanatory, the aforementioned
documents were not part of the records before the Arbitral Tribunal, which
made the impugned award dated 14.12.2019 and an Additional Award dated
23.01.2020.
4. Though very many reasons have been articulated in the affidavit filed
in support of instant application, two reasons impel me to accede to the request in this application and those two reasons are that the documents
sought to be brought on record are necessary for arguing regarding (a) jurisdiction and (b) limitation aspect.

¶8

Jurisdiction and limitation have to necessarily be looked into for deciding whether notice has to be issued in the main OP. To be noted, the sole Arbitrator, who constituted the Arbitral Tribunal, which made the

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/4

¶10

A.No.1668 of 2020 in OP.No.334 of 2020

¶11

impugned award was appointed by Karnataka High Court vide order dated 11.10.2017 and this order is also one of the seven documents, which are now sought to be brought on record.

¶12

The prayer in instant application is acceded to albeit preserving all
the rights of the respondent, regarding aforementioned seven documents being
brought on record and the seven documents, (if this Court issues notice in the
main OP), as this application being allowed prior to main OP being taken up
for deciding whether notice should be issued i.e., prior to notice to respondent
in instant application.
7. Instant application ordered with the above Caveat/above terms.
18.08.2020
(1/2)
kmi

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/4

¶14

A.No.1668 of 2020 in OP.No.334 of 2020

¶15

M.SUNDAR, J

¶16

kmi

¶17

A.No.1668 of 2020
in
OP.No.334 of 2020

¶18

18.08.2020

¶19

(1/2)

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/4

M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd, Rep.by its Senior Manager (T), v. M/s Balaji Projects, Rep.by its Managing Partner v.Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Engineering Projects India Ltd, Rep.by its Senior Manager (T), v. M/s Balaji Projects, Rep.by its Managing Partner v.Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalas Biotech Ltd. Vs The Official Liquidator

The Official Liquidator Vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

G.Mohan Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

M/S.R.S.Development and Vs M/S.Neyveli Lignite

Opg Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Senior Engineer, S.Venkatesh Vs Shree Karthik Papers Ltd.

M/s. Income Tax Department, Tax Recovery Officer-2, Vs The Official Liquidator