Disposed

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Madras HC13 Oct 2022WP/1453/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dealt with a writ petition challenging a blacklisting notice and denial of bill payment. Recognizing an arbitration clause, the Court appointed a retired Justice as a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes and closed the writ petition. Relief granted: appointment of arbitrator and directions for fees.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Retired Justice K.Ravichandra Babu as Sole Arbitrator; parties to bear fees equally; Arbitrator to decide disputes and pass award within six months; Writ Petition closed.

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

P.K.Sudarvel Pandian

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep by its General Manager Chennai Telephones (NOW-SOUTH) 40.E, CIPET Road, TVK Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-600 032

¶11

2.The Deputy General Manager (CP&MM) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones O/o Senior General Manager (NW, P & D) CFA No.2, Kushskumar road Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034

¶12

3.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep by its General Manager Chennai Telephones (Now-WEST) No.1, Ganga Nagar Telephone exchange Kodambakkam, Chennai

¶13

4.The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rep by its General Manager Chennai Telephones (Now-NORTH) Flower Bazaar Telephone exchange

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶17

No.1, 6^th floor, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai-600 001

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings made in No.AGM(CP&MM) CFAIV/CPT Tender Corres/2010-13/IV/13 dated 04.01.2013 issued by the 2^nd resondent and quash the same and consequentially forbear the respondents from preventing the petitioner from taking part in the tenders floated by BSNL, Chennai Telephone, Chennai.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ilansezhiyan for Mr.G.Ethirajulu For Respondents : Mrs.K.Parameshwari

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Challenging in the Writ Petition is with regard to payment of bill for

¶23

the work done by the petitioner and the consequential black listing by the 2^nd respondent.

¶24

As the Court has pointed out that the agreement governing the

¶25

parties contains Arbitration clause in agreement 17.2 both sides agreed for arbitration and suggested their names. The name suggested by the respondent are the retired officers. This Court is of the view that considering the dispute is of the view that if an independent Arbitrator is appointed the

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶29

same will meets the ends of justice.

¶30

Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, it is ordered as

¶31

follows:

¶32

i) that Hon'ble Retired Justice K.Ravichandra

¶33

Babu, Flat 1D, Crescent Castle Apartment, 13, Second Crescent Park Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai600 020. Mobile No.94980 33336 is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the matter.

¶34

ii] That the learned Arbitrator appointed herein, shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Order.

¶35

iii] That the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed

¶36

herein shall fix his fees and other incidental charges and the same shall be borne by the parties equally.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶38

_________ Page 3 of 6_

¶39

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶40

All the disputes with regard to the claims to be preferred by both the parties before the Arbitrator. Let the Arbitrator decide the issue. Accordingly the writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶41

13.10.2022

¶42

kpr Internet:Yes Speaking/Non speaking order

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶44

_________ Page 4 of 6_

¶45

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶46

¶47

1.The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones (NOW-SOUTH) 40.E, CIPET Road, TVK Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-600 032

¶48

2.The Deputy General Manager (CP&MM) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones O/o Senior General Manager (NW, P & D) CFA No.2, Kushskumar road Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034

¶49

3.The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones (Now-WEST) No.1, Ganga Nagar Telephone exchange Kodambakkam, Chennai

¶50

4.The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Chennai Telephones (Now-NORTH) Flower Bazaar Telephone exchange No.1, 6^th floor, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai-600 001

¶51

5.Hon'ble Retired Justice K.Ravichandra Babu, Flat 1D, Crescent Castle Apartment, 13, Second Crescent Park Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶53

_________ Page 5 of 6_

¶54

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶55

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶56

kpr

¶57

W.P.No.1453 of 2013

¶58

13.10.2022

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶60

_________ Page 6 of 6_

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.P.K.Sudarvel Pandian, v. the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

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

M/S. Gulyam Cotspin, Vs the Tamil Nadu Electricity

Board of Control for Cricket Vs Central Information Commission

K.Moorthy Vs The Chairman Cum Managing

Smt.Lizy George Chemmanur Vs Union of India Rep. by Its

Mr.K.Praveenkumar Vs the Director Collector

N.Ramasamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu