IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA C.M.P.NO.34/2017 BETWEEN:
M/S. BALAJI PROJECTS NO.20, 1ST FLOOR 10TH CROSS, TEMPLE STREET MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER …PETITIONER (BY SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV.) AND:
THE GENERAL MANAGER M/S. ENGINEERING PROJECTS INDIA LTD SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 3-D, EC CHAMBERS, 92 G.N.CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR CHENNAI – 600 017 ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(6)(a) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT SRI.KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHATT, (RETIRED) DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, OFFICE SITUATED AT CENTRAL CHAMBERS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU, AS THE SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 18/19.07.2011 IN THE ABOVE MATTER OR APPOINT ANY OTHER RETIRED DISTRICT OR HIGH COURT JUDGE, IN PURSUANCE OF CLAUSE NO.30 OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 18/19.07.2011 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS NECESSARY UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the Sole Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner claims that the respondent had through the work order dated 18.07.2011 entrusted the work as indicated therein. In that regard, the petitioner contends that the terms and conditions as per the notice inviting tender dated 07.01.2011 would also bind the parties.
3. According to the petitioner, having performed the same, the respondent is due to pay for the work completed. Despite demand having been raised by the petitioner, since the respondent had not paid the amount, the petitioner contends that a dispute had arisen between the parties, which is required to be resolved through arbitration. In that regard, contending that the agreement provides for arbitration in respect of the dispute between the parties, the petitioner having invoked the same had issued notice to the respondent. Though an interim reply was issued by the respondent, no further steps were taken to comply with the demand. In that light, the petitioner having addressed the notice dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure-D) had suggested the name of the Arbitrator. Since, the respondent had not accepted the same or nominated any other Arbitrator, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The notice of this petition was ordered to the respondent. The respondent though served has not chosen to appear and oppose this petition. In that light, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, though this Court need not go into the merits of the claim as made by the petitioner, all that is necessary to be taken note is that Clause-30 of the special conditions of contract provides for settlement of disputes through Arbitration. Though the said clause provides that the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) of EPI or the person appointed by him to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, keeping in view the fact that the respondent has not appointed the Arbitrator in such manner pursuant to the demand made by the petitioner invoking the said clause, this Court is required to exercise its power under Section 11 of the Act and appoint a suitable Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
5. Since, the name as suggested by the petitioner has not been opposed by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to appoint the Arbitrator as prayed by the petitioner in this petition. However, the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules governing the Arbitration Centre, Bangalore at the Arbitration Centre.
6. Accordingly, Sri Kukkaje Ramakrishna Bhat, retired District Judge is appointed to act as the Sole Arbitrator. A copy of this order be dispatched to the Arbitration Centre. The petitioner to also file the necessary papers before the Arbitration Centre. The Arbitrator shall thereupon enter reference, issue notice to the parties and adjudicate the dispute between the parties in terms of the provisions of the Act and Rules governing the Arbitration Centre.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST