Disposed
A.K.Marketing Associates, Secbad v. Chief Engineer (a/F), Secbad and 2 Others
Telangana HCARBAPPL/9/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
couRI{fl$JJkEAsJsE oF TELANGANA…
What the court decided
AI extract
couRI{fl$JJkEAsJsE oF TELANGANA…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
rN rHEH|GH couRI{fl$JJkEAsJsEoF TELANGANA
ruEsDAYor|HEJSEALJJi,3SLl-Li8=K*"*
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLESRIJUSTICEA'RAJASHEKERREDDY ATIO NNo.9OF2017 ARBITRATION APPLI
Between:
Between: A.K.t\4arketingAssocratesRepresentedby its ProorietorSri GJagalRamulu' S/o Narsaiah,Ased aboq-r.5i;5;;;'cj;;' 6'lslness' -cbmprex'nEiiJiJ'"i SJc"underabadotice uoo.l$tr','o*=*at"Flat No 11B' Above2 wav option. t 't ''# 'dfiu"'ioiarol
AND
...RES'ONDENTS
Applicationunder Section11(5)and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act' lgg6prayingthatinthecirCumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiIedtherewith,theHigh CoUrtmaybepleasedtoappointaSoleArbitratorintermsofCondition3Tofgeneral ConditionsofContract(IAFW-lSl5Zdulyamended)toresolvethedisputesbetween the Petitionerancjthe Respondents
ThisApplicationcomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheApplicationandthe affidavit filed in supportthereof and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri P. James, Advocate for the Petitioner and SriN. RajeshwarRao,Assistant SolicitorGeneralfor the Respondents.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The case of the applicant is that the applicantis aproprietorshipconcern and aiso a small scale industry under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojanalor sell employment and also a manufacturer of furniture items under thename "Jinkala" r,,,hich has been approved by the respondents department viz., Military Engineer Services and other Central and State Enginee ling Departments and other private parties. In such process, respondent No.2 had placed tn,o u,ork orders upon the applicant company as the rates quoted by it were the lowest and acceptable to the respondent department vide CWE letter No.84439/ Gp ll I 32 I E8 dated I 8. 08.2 O 12 and letter "No.84451 / Gplll / 17 / Ea
dated 25,lO. 2012". ?he applicant has completed the work sarisfactory ancl the comp'retion certificates also had been rendered by respondent No.3 and the applicant submitted the final bill on completion of said contracts and rhe same was forwarded to the GE office on 31.10.2013 and 25. 1 1.2013. Since rhe payments were not made, the applicant issued legal notice dated 09.03.2015 for payment of the amounts and the same was replied by the respondent No.3 on 31.03.2015 disputing the claim. As disputes arose, the applicant approached the lst respondent vide letter dared 20.07 .20 15 for requesting respondent No.1 for invoking clause 37 of the general conditions of the contract (IAFW- 1B 152) to appoint sore arbitrator to resorve the dispute between the parties, there u,as no response to the notice, hence present .pplication is liled by the applicant lor appointment of arbitrator.
"lt is submitted that though the respondent No.l who is authority for appointment of arbitrator, advised to resolve the dispute amicably with dialog across the table which was not heeded to by the applicant. These respondents have no objection in appointment of arbitrator to resolve the issues as the applicant is not agreeing to the fact that his furniture is not at par with Godrej. It is submitted that in terms of sub section 5 of section 12 of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 the claimant is required to submit a specific consent for appointment of departmental a-rbitrator to the appointing authority mentioned in the contract. Accordingly the respondent No.1 has no objection for appointment of the departmental arbitrator in the subject case on submissiotr of such consent by the applicant. The above applicatton is liable to be dismissed summarily as the applicant has not exhaustcd the departmentalremedies."
SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR
Note: As per the order of the Hon'ble Court in lA.No. 1 of 2020 in AA.No. I of 2017 dated 111812020 at Para 1 (line 11) of the order dated 1211112019 in AA.No. 9 of 2017 has been mentioned as "84451/Gp-lll/14lEB dt. 25110112" instead of "844511Gp-llll17/E8 dated 251101'12". The same is corrected as "84451/Gp-llV17lEB daled 25110112" as per the Order dated 111812020 in lA.No. 1ol 2020 in AA.No. 9 of 2017 .
This amended order substituted the earlier order daled 1211112019 which was dispatched on 1311212019
SD/. B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGIST
,TRUE COPY//
SECTI OFFICER
To,
IVP
.
-.--
HIGH COURT
DATED:1 211112019 ,,t110912020
1HE S 14
o
(
oo 03 sEP2020 ;l
* .SPATCTi -r-c *
AMENDED ORDER
ARB.APPL.No.9 of 2017
DISPOSING OF THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION WITHOUT COSTS
(5\ crO y9
A.K. Marketing Associates
Chief Engineer (A/F) Yeshvantapur Post
Commonner Works Engineer Company
Air Force Station Hympet
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court