Allowed

Bscpl Infrastructure Limited v. Castle Industries Private Limited

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025ARBAPPL/238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under an arbitration clause in a 2021 work order for recovery of dues from the respondent. The Court rejected the change-of-management objection, held disputes must be resolved as agreed, appointed a sole arbitrator and closed pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Sole arbitrator (Justice C.Praveen Kumar, Former Acting Chief Justice) appointed to adjudicate disputes under Work Order dt.22.07.2021.

Bscpl Infrastructure Limited Vs Castle Industries Private… — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

|^{,/</sup> :-z'}

[³¹⁶⁶ I

i I I l l

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶8

ARBITRATION APPLICATI ON NO: 238 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

BSCPL lnfrastructure Limited, M. No. 8-2-502111A, JIVI Towers, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Telangana, lndia -500034. Email. [email protected] Rep by its Authorized Signatory Mi. Koochi Ankith Kumar.

¶11

...Applicant

¶12

AND

¶13

Castle lndustries Private Limited, 5K Stephen Court, 18A Park Street. Kolkata, West Bengal - 700071 , lndia Also having office at. Shed No.14, Kalyani lndustrial Estate. Kalyani, West Bengal - 741235 Email. [email protected] Rep., by its Authorized Sig natoryi Managing Director

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Arbitration Application Under Section I 1(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a Sole Arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute regarding recovery of approx.., Rs. 2,71,42,844.841- that is due and payable to the Applicant emerging from the Work Order dated 22.07.2021 bearing BSCPLiNH-31/8KPM0120211446.

¶16

Counsel for the Applicant : Sri. D. Narendar Naik

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A. Venkatesh Senior Counsel representing Sri Pamula Vamshi Krishna, Advocate

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶20

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. 238 of 2024

¶21

ORDERT

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.Vr.nkatesh, learned Senitr Counsel appearing on behhlf of Sr pamula Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel appearing for Lhe sole respondent rLnd perused the record.

¶23

This rL:rplication is filed under Section 11(6t of the Arbitration r ncl Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking :rppoir tment of an arbitraloro rcsolve the disputes between the partier.,.

¶24

F acLs ilrving rise to filing of this application, bnefly stated, are that th: zLpplicant issued work order/Contract jn avour of the responCer-rt, uide BSCPL/NH-33 lBKplWO/2021 /446, d1.22.O7.2021, and clause 20 of the said Contract contains an arbitration cLiLuse. which is extracted below for the frrcility of reference:

¶25

'All disoutes ti:nder this contract shalt be d.ecid_ecl btr an arbitrrLt t. to be appointed bg BSCpL Infrastntcture Ltd.. Hyderctbed, subject to the prouisions of Indian Arbitru..tion Act and^{t)onciliation} Act, 1996. The matter shatt lie ir the junsdrcri'tn of Hyderabad Cowls onlg."

¶26

4 Learne<l counsel for the applicant submits as the ,lisputes arose be1u, e,l n the parties, it had sent a legal notice, dL.2e.y/2 0:2i] to the respondenl., appointing an arbitri,,!1 1"a

¶27

¶28

¶29

calling upoh the respondent^{to confirm the same, and the} respondent, in spite of^{receiving the aforesaid notice, failedto} respond, and therefore, the^{present ArbitrationApplicationis} filed.

¶30

Per contra, learned^{counsel appearing for respondent} submits that it did not^{receive the notice stated to havebeen} issued by the applicant.^{Learnedcounsel furthersubmits that} there has been change^{in the management of the respondent} Company as well as^{changein the Office of the saidrespondent'}

¶31

I have taken note of^{the respective submissionsmade}

¶32

7 . Insofar as the submission^{made by the respondent as to} the change of management^{in the respondent-Company' it is to} be noted that^{changeof managementwouldnot absolvethe} Company of its^{liabilities,and change ol management wouldbc} with all the assets and^{liabilltiesof the Company,inasmuchas} the Company continues^{to exist and carrying on the business'} Therefore, the said^{submissionin the considered view of thts} Court is without^{any substance, and hence,rejected'}

¶33

8 Since, the contract^{entered into by the partiesprovides for} an arbitration clause^{forresolution ofdisputes arlslng} thereunder, as^{noted herein above,the same requires resolution} in the manner^{agreed to by the parties} i \

¶34

¶35

¶36

g. Accorc irtgl1., this Arbitratron^{Applicationis allorvr:d, and} the Hon'ble Sr. Justice^{C.PraveenKumar,Former Actir:g Chief} Justice, Door No.8-2-293l82lNLl149-B,^{MLA &MP Coiony,} Vijaya Co^()l,orative Society, Road^{No.10-C,Jubile': Hilis,} Hyderabad^{-5iC ()033,} is appointed^{as the Sole Arbitrator,',vho will} adjudicate thc dispules beLween^{the parties, as may b: raised} before him, ir relation to Work^{Order/Contract, dt.2?-.C'7 .2021.} It shall be opr::-i for the parties to take all^{the pleasavailableto} them in 1au' b:lore the learned^{Arbitrator.The learnedAI bitrator} shall llx lris o\'n remuneration upon^{deliberatit'nand} consultation 'r ith thc parties in consonance^{u'ith the Fourth} Schedule oI tlrrr Arbitration and Conciliation^{Act, 1996. 'le shall} also estima t,r the cost and expenses^{for these';retarial} assistance :Lr <l olher incidental expenditure o[^{the arlritration} proceedings The parties will bear the expenses of^the arbitration prrrceedings in equal share. No costs.

¶37

Conseqrently, miscellaneous applications^{pendinS:,,if any,} shall stand cl,rse d. No order as to costs. n Sd/- M. VIJAYA^BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE GOPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1 Sri Justice iiisia2-/i.ilrag^{rS Praveen Kumar, Former e, MtA& Mi-dorony, Vijaya Acting Chief Co-operative Justicr: Scciety, Door Road No S-2-No-} 10_c, Jubitee^{Hiils, Hyderabao} -^{6oooei. ( By Special Messenger )} *itl", a copy^{of affidavit and material papers'l}

¶43

i b;Cd "fo"g to^{Sr,.D. NirendarNaik Advocate [OPUC]} o." ic to^{Sri PamulaVamshi Krishna,Advocate[oPUCl}

¶44

\fl; Two CD CoPies DUPSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:,1110412025

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.238 ol 2024

¶49

r{:
,3 02 ui Y zlE
na
( .')r,
*
'i - {.1 ,:, . o

¶50

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

¶51

Bscpl Infrastructure Limited v. Castle Industries Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bscpl Infrastructure Limited v. Castle Industries Private Limited

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

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

P. Kalyan Chakravatrthi, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Challa Shahikala Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Guttikonda Gousia Banoo Vs The State of Telangana

N R Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Muppavaram Saida Chary Vs Jinkala Venkataiah