IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.204/2019 BETWEEN:
M/s Mavin Switchgears and Controls Private Limited, Having its registered Office at Plot No.9, N-11, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India.
Represented by its Authorised Signatory.
Sri.Mohammed Abdul Rub.
(By Sri.Sagar B.B, Advocate for Sri.Satish M. Doddamani, Advocate) AND:
M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (Government of India Enterprise) Having its registered office at # 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai – 400020. DGM-Projects.
... Petitioner (By Sri.Gaurav Singh Gaur, Advocate for Sri.Jigesh Kumar, M.D., Advocate) ... Respondent This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(5, 6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, praying this Hon’ble Court to appoint an independent arbitrator for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the purchase order dated 22.03.2019 bearing No.17000189- 0Q10155/PKK vide Annexure-A in the interest of justice and equity.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed a present Civil Miscellaneous Petition under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act’) for appointment of Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Arbitration Clause in the Purchase Order dated 22.03.2018 bearing No.17000189-0Q-10155/PKK.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited/ respondent invited tenders for the purpose of carrying out the following works;
1. 66KV terminal bay at KPTCL Devanagondi existing substation.
2. Construction of 66KV S/C line on D/C Towers from Devangodi existing substation to proposed HPCL 66/11KV substation.
3. 66/11 KV Terminal bay extension, transmission line and substation at HPCL Green R&D Centre at Bengaluru.
3. The petitioner participated in the bid and he was declared as successful bidder. Subsequently, respondent issued Purchase Order on 22.03.2018. On 08.02.2019, the respondent has cancelled the Purchase Order issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground of non completion of the work within the stipulated time. On 21.02.2019, the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondent and demanded to initiate the arbitration proceeding by appointing a sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute with regard to termination of the purchase order. On 11.03.2019, the respondent issued a reply asking if the petitioner would waive of the requirement of amended provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 and ultimately, refused the proposal. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. The respondent filed objections, denied the averments made and contended that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order entered into between the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri.Sagar B.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute that the M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited/ respondent invited tenders. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the tender and he was declared as successful bidder. Thereafter, both parties entered into Purchase Order on 22.03.2018. Though the petitioner was discharging his duty in terms and conditions of the purchase order, the respondent has cancelled unilaterally Purchase Order on 08.02.2019 on the ground of non-completion of work within time stipulated. In view of the Arbitration Clause stipulated in the Purchase Order, the petitioner issued legal notice. In the reply, though the respondent agreed for appointment of Arbitrator only in terms of the Arbitration Clause. Therefore, he would contend that in view of the amendment of provision of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, existing employee is not permitted to appoint as Arbitrator. Therefore, he fairly submits that while disposing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, any former District Judge can be appointed as sole Arbitrator.
7. Per contra, Sri.Gaurav Singh Gaur, learned counsel for Sri.Jidesh Kumar M.D., learned counsel appearing for respondent while supporting the statement of objection contended that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the Purchase Order. In terms of the Purchase Order, only former employee can be appointed as a Arbitrator and contended that in view of controversy involved between the parties, he fairly submits that any former District Judge can be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator.
8. At this stage, both learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that Sri.S.Siddalingesh, Former District Judge may be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
9. The said submission is placed on record.
10. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sri.S.Siddalingesh, Former District Judge is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in terms of clause 16.9 of the Purchase Order dated 22.03.2018 entered between the parties.
11. Learned Arbitrator is directed to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law. All the contentions of both parties are left open to urge before the learned Arbitrator.
12. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Sri.S.Siddalingesh, Former District Judge and Arbitration Centre forthwith for reference and to return the Original Purchase Order after following the procedure in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE NBM