Allowed

M/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects Limited

Telangana HC12 Feb 2025ARBAPPL/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) after the respondent failed to respond to its arbitration invocation over unpaid work dues. Respondent raised no objection. The Court allowed the application and appointed a former Judge as sole Arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti (Retd.) appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes; liberty to both parties to raise contentions before him; no costs.

M/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶6

ARBITRATION APPLICATION No:272 ot 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Gayatri Construction Company, a sole^{proprietorship} having its registered office at 4051406 Labh lcon Near Sales, lndia GotriVasan Road Vadidara, Gujarat-390021

¶9

Also at

¶10

607, Felix Square, Ansal APl, Sushant Golf City, Lucknow - 226030 Rep by^its Proprietor - Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh

...Applicant

AND

TATA PROJECTS LIMITED, a^private limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registprred office at one Boulevard, 2nd ,3'd and 4rh floors, Lake Boulevard Stre6t, Powai, Mumbai400076.

¶15

Also at

¶16

Mithona Towers - 1, 1-7-80 to 87, Penderghast Road, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 003 Rep. by its Authorized Signatory

¶17

...Respondent

¶18

Arbitration Application filed under Section 1 1(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, R/w Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrator,²⁰⁰⁰ praying that this Hon'ble Coud may be pleased to (a) appoint a^person, conversant with disputes arising out of construction contracts as the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent, in^pursuance of Clause^{26 (ii) of the} Special Conditions of the Contract, annexed to letter of Acceptance^{(LOA) Work} dated 19-05-2021 , (b) ln the alternative this Hon'ble Court^{may be pleasedto} appoint a sole arbitrator conversant with disputes arising out of construction contracts, in pursuance of Clause 26 (ii) of the Special Conditions of^the Contract, annexed to letter of Acceptance^(LOA) Work dated^19-05-2021 ,^{(c) for} costs.

¶19

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Siddharth Gadugu, representing

¶21

Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

;

¶24

,ry

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶26

ARR ITRATION APPLICATION No.272 OF 2024

¶27

ORAL ORDER:

¶28

Heard Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Siddharth Gadugu, leamed counsel representing Ms. Shireen Sethna Baria. leamed counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The respondent has issued Letter of Acceptance^(LOA), dated 19.05.2021 lbr Onsite Structural Fabrication Works for CDUVDU of HRRL Barmer Project in favour of the applicant oru the specific terms and sonditions made therein. According to the applicant. it has executed the said work in terms of LOA. .It is entitled to an amount of Rs.4.60 Crores. Despite repeated requests made by it, the respondent did not pay the said amount. Therefore, invoking arbitration clause ol the Special Conditions to the Conftact annexed to the said LOA, the applicant has sent e-mail dated 09.05.2024 to the respondent with a request. to propose sole Arbitrator in terms of the said LOA. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said e-mail, respondent did not respond to the same. Therefore, the applicant filed the present arbitration application.

¶30

f'r

¶31

¶32

KL,J Arb.Appl.No.272 of 2024

¶33

Mr. Siddharth^{Gadugu, learned counsel representingMs'} Shireen Sethna^{Bari4 leamed counsel for the responden!on} instructions,^{would submit that the respondent has no objection in} appointing an^{arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes betweenthe} appticant^{and the respondent. However, liberty maybe given to the} respondent^{to raise all the contentions and grounds which they have} .' raised in the^{present applicationbefore the Arbitrator'}

¶34

Clause -²⁶ 0I)^{of the SpecialConditions to the Contract} annexed to^{the LOAdeals with 'arbitration', whichis rdievant and the} same is extracted^{as under:}

¶35

"26.II) Arbitration:^{The TPLand the Contractor} shall make^{everyeffort to resolve amicably by} direct inlormal^{negotiation anydisagreementor} dispute arising^{between them either under or in} connection^{with the Contract.Ifafter30 daysfrom} the commencement^{of suchinformalnegotiations,} the TPL and the^{Contractor have been unable'to} resolve amicably^{a Contractdispute,the sameshall} be referred for^{resolutionto a single arbitrator in} case the^{partiescan agree upon one,otherwise to} two arbitrators,^{one to be appointedby eachparty} and an umpire^{to be appointed by the two}

¶36

KL,J Arb.Appl.No.272 of 2024

¶37

¶38

arbitrators. The arbitration^{shallbe carried out in} accordance with and subject^{to the provisionsof} the tndian Arbitration and^{ReconciliationAct.} 1996. or any statutory modification^{or reenactment} thereof lor the time^{beingin force.The decisionof} the arbitrator/umpire shall^{be final and binding} upon both parties. The^{venue for Arbitrationshall} be Hyderabad, Telangana^{(India)- Execution of} the Contract shall be continued^{by the Contractor} during the arbitration^{proceedingsunlessotherwise} directed in writing bY^{the TPL."}

¶39

¶40

¶41

It is the specific^case of the^{applicant that it has executedthe} aforesaid work^{pursuantto the l-OA, dated 19.05.2021. There is no} I complaint against the applicant^{herein.It is entitled for an amount of} Rs.4.60 Crores. The^{respondentis not payingthe saidamount.There} is no response from the^{respondentto the aforesaid e-mail dated} 09.05.2024. Therefore, there^{are disputes between the applicant and} the respondent which are arbitrable^{in nature to be adjudicatedby an} Arbitrator.

¶42

(

¶43

The present arbitration application^{is accordinglyallowed,} and Sri Justice M. Seetharama^{Murti,Former Judge,High Court of} Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, R/o Flat^No.602, 'A'^Block,White

('l

KL,J Arb.Appl.No.272 of 2024

¶48

House Apartments, H.No.8-2-67412^{&2A,Road No.13, Banjara Hills,} Hyderabad, Telangana State -^{500 034 (Mobile# 9440405308 &} email Id: [email protected]),^{is appointed as an Arbitrator to} adjudicate the disputes between^{the applicantand the respondent.} Liberry is granted to both^{the parties to raise all the contentionsand} grounds which they have raised in^{the presentapplicationbeforethe} leamed Arbitrator, and^{it is for the leamed Arbitratorto considbi the} same. In the circumstances^{of the case, there shall be no orderas to} costs.

¶49

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous^{applications,if any,pending}

¶50

in the Arbitration Application^{shall stand closed}

¶51

Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHAS ER JOINT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY//

¶52

\ To,

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

Sri Justice M, Seetharama Murti, Former Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, R/o Flat No.602,^'A' Block, White House Apartments. H.NI.B-2-67 412 & 24, Road No 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 034 (Mobile # 9440405308 & email ld: [email protected]) (By Special Messenger) (Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

¶55

One CC to Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

One CC to Ms. Shireen Sethna Barra, Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

Two CD Copies

kam/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212025

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.272 ot 2024

¶64

1HE ST4 14:
ooJ 0 7 lil Afl zffi
c)
t-
t)
l"

¶65

ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION

M/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Gayatri Construction Company v. Tata Projects 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

Heera Begum @ Kaleem Sulthna Vs The State of Telangana

Sheribai Abhishek Reddy Vs Telangana State Election Commission

Mr. Syed Sajid Nawaz Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Osman Vs The State of Telangana

M. Jayender Vs The State of Telangana

aM/s Gayatri Construction Company Vs Tata Projects Limited.