Allowed

M/s Arudra Constructions v. Salar Jung Museum

Telangana HC22 Apr 2013ARBAPPL/85/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order appoints a retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, rejecting the respondent's proposed nominee due to agreement clauses and the tender document's silence on designation.

What did the court decide?

Sri N. Sanyasi Rao, Retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

M/s Arudra Constructions Vs Salar Jung Museum — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

1. This is an application filed under Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties with regard to the construction work at Salar Jung Museum.

¶5

2. The petitioner herein is the contractor. During the course of the contract work, disputes have arisen and the work is said to have been completed and the amounts are due to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is disputed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no authority has been nominated under the tender documents to appoint the Arbitrator.

¶6

3. From the arguments of the counsel for the respondent, the dispute with regard to the refund or payment of money is not disputable. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Board itself is the authority competent to appoint the Arbitrator and no separate authority need to be mentioned with reference to the tender documents.

¶7

4. Annexure-E of the agreement provides for the appointment of an Arbitrator, who shall be Serving Officer having degree in Engineering or equivalent or having passed final/direct final examination of subDivision II of Institution of Surveyor (India), to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender documents. But, however, the counsel for the respondent has also furnished the name of Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, who is a Surveying Assistant Engineer, to be appointed as an Arbitrator in connection with the dispute raised by the petitioner.

¶8

5. In fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the officer, who has been appointed as an Arbitrator, is only an Assistant Engineer and though superior officers are available, they were not appointed. Therefore, according to him, in the better

¶9

interests, a Judicial Officer, who has been mentioned in the application, may be considered.

¶10

6. Evidently, as per the Arbitration Clause, the necessary authority, which has been mentioned in the tender documents, has to nominate the Arbitrator. There is no dispute about the fact that the tender document is silent about the authority, which should nominate the Arbitrator.

¶11

7. I have gone through the copy of the agreement, which is enclosed along with the application. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner, it is silent as to the competent authority for appointment of the Arbitrator. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the nomination proposed by the respondent cannot be considered and instead Sri N. Sanyasi Rao, Retired District and Sessions Judge, is appointed as an Arbitrator.

¶12

8. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed and Sri N.Sanyasi Rao, Retired District and Sessions Judge, # 11-5-413, Flat No.304, Bhavyas Krishan Residency, Opp.RBI Quarters, Red Hills, Hyderabad – 500 004, is appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per the rules. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________ (N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J)

¶14

22^nd April 2013 RRB/EHA

M/s Arudra Constructions v. Salar Jung Museum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Arudra Constructions v. Salar Jung Museum

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. Vidyuth Steels Workers and Employees Union, Vs M/s. Vidyuth Steels Ltd., (In Prov. Liqn.)

S. Sijatha Laxmi, Vs B. Sumathi Devi

Laxminivas jaju Vs Smt.Jamuna bai Jaju

M/s.Ramani IceCream Company Ltd, Vs Mrs.Vijaya Reddy

Saravana Aaawas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Smt. Parvathaneni Vijaya Rajyalakshmi

M/s Murari Tradingf Company, Vs Jsw Ispat Limited