Disposed

Sunalpha Energy Cleantech Private Limited v. Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2025ARBAP/42/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought Section 11 appointment of a sole arbitrator over unpaid operation and maintenance bills for a solar plant installed at respondent No.1's premises. The court found an arbitration agreement in Clause 13.3 existed, appointed a sole arbitrator, and held the Bank was neither proper nor necessary party to the arbitration.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sunalpha Energy Cleantech Private Limited Vs Tileco Natural… — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10406]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 42/2024

¶4

Sunalpha Energy Cleantech Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Sun Alpha Solar (Raj.) Private Ltd.) Having Its Registered Office At 208 Fortune Heights, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001 Through Authorised Representative Mr. Rishi Kant Pareek

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited, Registered Office7/50, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302033

¶8

HDFC Bank Ltd., Near Panch Batti, Adjoining Raj Mandir Cinema Hall, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302001

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ms.	Raghav Karishnatri Divisha Mishra for
	Mr.	Shashank Kasliwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Nitish Kumar Bagri
	Mr.	Naman Yadav

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

07/03/2025

¶14

Heard counsel for respective parties and perused the record.

¶15

This Arbitration Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996") has been filed by the applicant for appointment of a sole Arbitrator to resolve its dispute with the respondent No.1 viz. Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited, arisen out of an Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019, wherein Clause 13.3 stipulates to refer the dispute to arbitration for resolution.

[2025:RJ-JP:10406]

[ARBAP-42/2024]

(2 of 5)

The Arbitration Application has been replied by the respondent No.1- Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited as well as by the respondent No.2- HDFC Bank Limited.

¶20

It appears from the record that a solar plant was established by the applicant in the premise of respondent No.1 and for the operation and maintenance of such solar plant, a separate Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019 was executed between the applicant and respondent No.1. As per maintenance agreement, for six years, the applicant was required to facilitate the respondent No.1 to operate and maintain the solar plant and for the first year, services were to be rendered honorary and for further five years applicant was authorized to raise bills for providing services. It is an undisputed fact that a performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.3,41,205/- was furnished by the applicant before respondent No.1 through respondent No.2- HDFC Bank.

¶21

The dispute has arisen between the applicant and respondent No.1, on account of not honoring the bills of applicant for operation and maintenance of the solar plant.

¶22

The respondent No.1 has repudiated the bills of applicant, on a plea that the solar plant was not maintained by the applicant rather due to its non-operational, the respondent No.1 has suffered damages, hence, respondent sought to encash the performance guarantee furnished by the applicant to the tune of Rs.3,41,205/-.

¶23

Thus, it is apparent that the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1 has arisen which requires to be resolved and it is also undisputed that an Arbitration Agreement in Clause 13.3 of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019

¶24

(3 of 5) [ARBAP-42/2024]

¶25

[2025:RJ-JP:10406]

¶26

exists between the parties for resolution of such dispute through arbitration.

¶27

Clause 13.3 incorporated in the Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019 reads as under:

¶28

"All disputes that have not been satisfactorily resolved under Clause 13.2 shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Jaipur (Rajasthan) in accordance with the Arbitration laws prevalent in India for the time being in force. There shall be a sole arbitrator who shall be jointly appointed by the Parties to the Dispute. The seat and venue of the arbitration shall be Jaipur (Rajasthan). The language of the arbitration shall be English."

¶29

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-HDFC Bank submits that the Bank is not a party to the Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019 and the dispute is between the applicant and respondent No.1, hence, the Bank be absolved to be a party in the arbitration proceedings.

¶30

It has been pointed out by the counsel for applicant that the Operation and Maintenance Agreement has been terminated by the applicant on 05.07.2022 and when the applicant sought to return the bank guarantee, Bank declined the same, hence, the Bank has also been impleaded as party respondent No.2 in the Arbitration Application.

¶31

In addition, he submits that prior to moving this Arbitration Application, an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 was filed before the Trial Court, wherein the Bank has been injuncted by ad interim stay order dated 06.08.2022 not to encash the bank guarantee of applicant in favour of respondent No.1 and that stay is still operating and the application is pending before the trial Court.

[2025:RJ-JP:10406]

[ARBAP-42/2024]

(4 of 5)

This Court is of considered opinion that the dispute between the applicant and the respondent No.1 has arisen out of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement dated 27.01.2019 and that agreement itself contains an Arbitration Agreement in Clause 13.3 referred hereinabove, to refer such dispute to the arbitration. Hence, the Arbitrator is required to be appointed.

¶36

As far as respondent No.2-HDFC Bank is concerned, this Court finds that injunction has already been granted in favour of applicant against the Bank and for the decision of the dispute before the applicant and respondent No.1, the Bank is neither proper nor necessary party. Hence, it is expected that the applicant shall not implead the Bank as party in the arbitration proceedings.

¶37

As a result, the Arbitration Application succeeds and the Arbitral Tribunal of sole Arbitrator Mr. Atul Kumar Chaterjee (Retd. District Judge); Address:- C-500, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan; Phone No. 9461011122; E-mail ID:[email protected] , as a sole Arbitrator, is constituted, to adjudicate the dispute between parties in accordance with provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶38

The appointment of the Sole Arbitrator is subject to the declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to independence and impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the prescribed period.

¶39

The arbitration fee of the Sole Arbitrator shall be payable in accordance with the provisions contained in the Manual of

[2025:RJ-JP:10406]

[ARBAP-42/2024]

(5 of 5)

Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 as amended by the Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment), 2017 vide notification dated 23.03.2017 read with 4^th Schedule appended to the Act of 1996 or as determined by the Arbitrator with consensus of parties.

¶44

The Registry is directed to intimate Arbitrator Mr. Atul Kumar Chaterjee (Retd. District Judge), for his approval and consent to act as Arbitrator.

¶45

All other issues may be raised by the parties before the Arbitrator, which shall be considered in accordance with law. 17. Since as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration proceedings are required to be concluded within scheduled time as stipulated therein, it is expected from the parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 26.03.2025 or any other date as informed by the Arbitrator to parties or agreed between parties with the consent of Arbitrator, and further parties shall provide their respective E-mail/ Contact Number/ Mobile Number as also of their authorized representatives/lawyers, appearing on their behalf before the Arbitration Tribunal, in order to facilitate the Arbitrator to send information to the parties, whenever required. The information send by the Arbitrator, on such address/ E-mail/ cellphone of the parties/ their authorized representatives/lawyers, shall be treated as sufficient unless same is not changed.

¶46

The Arbitration Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶47

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶48

NITIN/15

Sunalpha Energy Cleantech Private Limited v. Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sunalpha Energy Cleantech Private Limited v. Tileco Natural Stones Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Choudhary S/O Shri Shubhkaran Choudhary Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Manna Lal Vs State and Ors.

Swastik Plyboard Limited Vs the Regsitrar of Trade Marks

Re Sustainability Limited Vs Ajmer Municipal Corporation

Niranjan Lal Joshi Vs Pramod Kumar

Praveen Meena S/O Shri Rameshwar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan