Dismissed

M/s. Zagson Engineering Ltd. v. M/s. Sokeo Power Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC19 Dec 2023ARBAPPL/86/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent challenged maintainability due to delay. The court permitted the applicant to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh one.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration application dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to institute fresh application.

M/s. Zagson Engineering Ltd. Vs M/s. Sokeo Power Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO: 86 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Zagson Engineering Ltd, E-33, First Floor, Street No. 06, Abul Fazal Enclave- ll, Shaheen Bagh, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-¹ 10025

¶10

...APPLICANT

¶11

AND

¶12

M/s. SOKEO Power Pvt. Ltd, #98/10/101, Sokeo House Sai Madhu Towers, Opp. Cyber Towers Madhupur, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500081

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Appeal filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a sole arbitrator retired district^judge, for the purpose of adjudicating the disputes which arose between the Applicant and Respondent in lieu of the Work Order dated 21.12.2015.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. D. NARENDAR NAIK

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶19

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.86 of 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short'the Act') for appointment of a sole arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the dlsputes arisen between the applicant and the respondent in pursuance of the Work Order dated 21.12.2OL5.

¶22

2 The matter was heard for a considerable length of time.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Coun in B and T AG v. MINISTRY OF

¶24

DEFENCE1 referreC to paras 54 to 56 and submitted that the instant arbitration application was filed beyond three years from the date of cause of action and has taken preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant arbitration application. He contended that the application is clearly barred by limitation.

¶25

A calculation memo is filed by the learned counsel for the respondent computing the period of limitation. It is submitted that even after exclusion of 30 days period after issuance of notice dated 06.06.2Ot7, LL4 days, during which time Arbitration petition No.698 of 2017 was pursued before the High Court of Delhi and 7!6

¶26

'2023^{SCC OnlineSC657}

-r'-

days during Covid^{period(15.03.2020to 28'02'2022),there is still} delay of 110 days^{in filing the arbitrationapplication'}

¶32

Learned counsel^{for the respondent further submitted that} the total^period of^{exclusioneven as per the admitted caseis 30} days + 114 days^{+ 716 days} =^{860 days; that periodof limitation} would start from^{06.06.2017 and end on 05'06'2020 and after} exclusion of 860^{days, there is still a delay of 110 days'}

¶33

Learned counsel^{for the applicant submittedthat apart from} thirty (30) days of^{time availablefor fillng of application under} Section 11(6) of^{the Act afterissuingnotice under Section 21 of the} Act, the^period consumed^{for bonafide prosecutingthe proceedings} before the High^{Courtof Delhi in Arbitration Petition No'698of} 2017, the Covid^{period and the timeconsumed for issuance of} certified copy of^{the orderof the HighCourt of Delhi needs to be} excluded.

¶34

Learned counsel for^{the applicant furthersubmitted that} assuming that if^{there is delay in filing the instant application'} the applicant^{has remedy under Section 43 of the Act to file a} condone delay^{application. The applicant had bonafide prosecuted} the application^{before the High Court of Delhi and as such'} the period^{consumed for prosecutingthe application has to be} excluded under^{Section14 of the LimitationAct All these details}

¶35

¶36

have not been clearly spelt out in the instant application. Further, if necessary, an application under Section 5 of the Llmitation Act read with Section 43 of the Act will be filed. He prays that liberty may be granted to the applicant to withdraw the instant application and institute fresh arbitration application.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the applicant is always at Iiberty to invoke the remedies available under law.

¶38

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is permitted to withdraw the instant arbitration application with Iiberty to institute fresh arbitration application.

¶39

The arbitration application is dlsmissed as withdrawn granting the liberty sought for. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

¶40

costs.

¶41

sDr- c.v.^{MALLIKARJUNAVARMA} JOINT^REGIST

¶42

//TRUE^COPY//

¶43

SECTION FICER

¶44

'o',. on" 99 t":'il"f ["":"]th5fl'ffijijfJ?S"# 2. One^{CC to Sri D' Narel}

¶45

toPucl

¶46

Two^{CD CoPies}

PIP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911212023

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.86 of 2023

¶53

$L S T T€
,q
I Ct
I 4 j AN 2[2
,t
*
t
oE

¶54

DISMISSING THE APPLICATION AS WITHDRAWN

¶55

@"P

¶56

M/s. Zagson Engineering Ltd. v. M/s. Sokeo Power Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Zagson Engineering Ltd. v. M/s. Sokeo Power Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Vijaya Simha Reddy Vs Government of Telangana

G.v.Anand Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Dandu Rajeshwari Vs The State of Telangana

Datla Satyanarayana Vs The STate of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

M/s Rudra Infrastructure Vs The State of Telangana

Bandaru kistaiah@Pedda Kristaiah, Vs The State of Telangana