ARBAPPL/54/2020 of M/S.STEP UP ENTERPRISES Vs M/S.KARVY RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS LIMITED on 30 December 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR [THE STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH [DAY ][OF DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [A, RAJASHEKER ][REDDY]

ARBITRATIO N APPLICAT [ION NO: ][54 ][OF ][2020]

Between:

lv/s step up Enterprises, [A ][partnership ][firm ][registered ][under ][the ][Partnership ][Act,]niuing its'Principbl Place of [Business ][at ][No.3/1228 ][F., ][Adhiyaman Street..V]Jettih;lli Road, Vennampatti, [Dharmapuri ][- 636 ][705 ][and ][having its^branch ][otlrce];iN".r0 Royat Garden [Annex ][/ ][KattLipakkam,.Thiruvallur District, Chennai - ][600]OLO'r"pi".",itud by its [Director Business Development Sri K. Saravanan, S/o. ][S.]Kathirvel.

...Applicant

AND

M/s Karvy Renewable [Energy Projects ][Limited, ][A ][company incorporated under]ine [proviiions ]of Companiei-Act, [2013, having ][its ][reglstered Office ][al ][Karvy]iliillennium [- ]Plot No.3i, [Nanakramguda Financial District' ][Gachibowli,]HvO"rjOiO Rangareddy [District ]- [5-00032, ][represented ][by its ][chairman ][and]M-anaging Director Sri [C. ][Parthasarathy.]

...ResPondent

Arbitration Application [under ][section ]['1 ][1 (4) ][and ][(6) ][of ][the ][Arbitration ][and]Conciliation Act, 1996, [read ][with ][Scheme ][for ][Appointment ][of ][Arbitrators, ][praying that]this High Court may [be ]Pleased ,,To appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between theApplicant and Respondent [in ][respect ][to ][Work Order No.KREPL/WO/TSRTC ][/]BOS/1 B-1 9/001A dt.20.09.201 [8]Applicant and Respondent [in ][respect ][to ][Work Order No.KREPL/WO/TSRTC ][/]BOS/1 B-1 9/001A dt.20.09.201 [8]

ITo award the costs of [application ][and]ilrTo pass such other order [or ][orders as ][the ][Hon'ble ][Court ][may deem ][fit ][and]proper in the circumstances of the [case.]proper in the circumstances of the [case.]

Counsel for the Petitioner: [SRI ][NADELLA VENKATESWARA ][RAO]

Counsel for the Respondents: [SRI ][ROHIT POGULA]

The Court made the following: [ORDER]

l\ IIIIITRATION,,\ PPl. I CA'l'l ON No.54 OF 2020

ORDIiR:

This Arbitration Application is tlled under Section I I (4) & (6) oftlie Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for shorl "the Act") seekingto appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between theApplicant and Respondent in respect of the work Order No.KREPL/WO/TSRTC/BOS/18-19/001A, dt.20.09.2018, and to award costs to theapplicant.

2. 1'he applicant company is a registered Partnership Firm unclerthe Partnership Act and carrying on the business o1'supply ol solarI)roducts and allied services. T'he Respondent coutpuny is u contprtrrlincorporated under the Cou.rpanies Act. The applicant and the respondententered into a work order tbr Supply, lnstallation and Commissioning ofSolar Roofiop Power Plants vide Work Order dated 14.09.2018 andAmended Work Order d1.20.09.2018 (for short 'Agreement'). By thesaid Agreement, the applicant shall supply, install and commission theSolar Rooftop Power Plants at the sites specified by the Respondentcompany or its authorized personnel as per the specifications providedtherein. The Agreement contains Arbitration clause, as per which thedisputes between the pa(ies shall be finally settled and governed by theprovisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and theArbitration Panel shall consist ol three arbitrators, one to be appointecl byeach party and the thircl arbitrator shall be appointed by the trvoappointed a rb itrators.

The applicant completed the works in accordance with theagreement and handed it over to the respondent. The applicant raisedinvoices for the work done by it. However, the respondent failed to paythe entire due amounts as claimed under the invoices. Subsequently,various communications were sent by the applicant to the respondentrequesting for payment. Thereafter, in pursuance to the resolution clause,the applicant was constrained to issue an arbitration notice fbr theoutstanciing dues. The respondent sent his reply with sonre otherallegations. They have neither come forward to appoint arbitrator liomtheir side nor replied on the said aspect. Thererore, this ArbitrationApplication is filed seeking to nominate and appoint a Sole Arbitrator.

3. Heard Sri N. Venakteswara Rao, the leamed counsel for theapplicant and Sri Rohit pogula, leamed counsel appearing for therespondent.

4. At the time of arguments both the learned counsel state that aSole Arbitrator may be appointed though the Arbitration clause in theAgreeme rrt provides 1br appointrnent of three Arbitrators.

5. In view ol the said submission of both the learnecl counsel. thisArbitration Application is allowed, nominating Sri V. SeetharamaAvadhani, (Retired District Judge) as the sole Arbitrator. It is open fbrboth the parlies to raise their respective claims before the Arbitrator.

6. The learned Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per the ratesspecifGd in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1996, inserted byAct 3 of I

2016 with etfect from 23_10_2015. which shall be bome by borh partiesin equal shares.

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the Arbitration Application, shall stand closed.

SdIB.S.CHIRANJEEVIJOINT REGISTRARA'/'SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY'

To,