Allowed

M/S. Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited v. M/S. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd.

Telangana HC7 Mar 2011ARBAPPL/193/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, due to a subsisting dispute between the applicant and respondent regarding a Memorandum of Understanding involving dredging contracts and counter-claims. Justice Sri R. Ramanujam was appointed as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Justice Sri R. Ramanujam is appointed as sole arbitrator; fees to be borne equally by both parties.

M/S. Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited Vs M/S… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

Arbitration Application No. 193 of 2010

¶3

Date: 07.03.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad.

¶6

…Applicant

¶7

And

¶8

M/s. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd., Hyderabad.

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶11

Arbitration Application No. 193 of 2010

¶12

O R D E R :

¶13

This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the respondent arising under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2006.

¶14

It is stated that the applicant and the respondent had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2006 whereunder the respondent herein had awarded three contracts to the applicant relating to the dredging and reclamation of the Krishnapatnam Port channel. Clause 12 of the said Memorandum of Understanding provides for settlement of disputes arising out of the said agreement by arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶15

It is stated that having executed the works awarded under the said Memorandum of Understanding the applicant and its sister concern raised a total claim of Rs. 20,52,49,136/- from the respondent. However, the respondent failed to make the payment in spite of repeated requests made by the applicant. In the circumstances, the applicant by letter dated 29.10.2010 invoked the arbitration clause under the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2006 and proposed the name of a former Judge of this Court as Arbitrator. The respondent by letter dated 29.11.2010 had accepted the proposal. Immediately thereafter on 01.12.2010 the respondent issued corrigendum informing the applicant that the Arbitrator was not acceptable to them. While further negotiations were going on, the respondent on 15.12.2010 had come out with a claim of Rs.6,40,19,505.50 ps. against the applicant. Hence, the present application seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶16

In response to the notice ordered by this Court on 30.12.2010, Sri S.V.S.Choudary entered appearance for the sole respondent.

¶17

Though, no counter affidavit is filed, the learned counsel for the respondent Sri S.V.S. Choudary conceded across the bar as to the existence of the disputes between the parties arising out the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2006 and that both parties made claims and counter claims.

¶18

Thus, it is clear that an arbitrable dispute out the Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.11.2006 is subsisting between the parties and the same requires resolution by arbitration as provided under Clause 12 of Memorandum of Understanding. Accordingly, Justice Sri R.Ramanujam, Former Judge of this Court, Plot No.186, 6^th Avenue, Saipuri Colony, Near Srikrishna Astalakshmi Temple, Sainikpuri, Secunderabd, is hereby appointed as the Arbitrator. It is open to the learned Arbitrator to fix his fees and the same shall be borne by both parties equally. Arbitration application is accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶19

_______________ G. ROHINI, J

¶20

Date: 07.03.2011 KLP

M/S. Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited v. M/S. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Dharti Dredging and Infrastructure Limited v. M/S. Navayuga Engineering Company Ltd.

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 Deccan Chargers Sporting Ventures Limited Vs -

Konda Ramesh Reddy Vs M/S J.S.N.R.Constructions

M/S Odyssey India Limited Vs -

Ganesula Uma Parvathi Vs Ayitam Rama Swamy

Sri Balchand Soni Vs Official Liquidator

S.Venkateswarlu, Vs Noor Ahmed, The Depot Manager, Apsrtc