ARBAPPL/52/2020 of K.Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Union of India on 30 December 2020

1. The Union of lndia, [represented ][by ][The General Manager, ][S ][C' Rly' ][Rail]Nilayam, Secunderabad.

2. The Chief Administrative [officer/CON, S.C Railway, Secunderabad']

3. The Dy, Chief [Engineer/C/NZB S.C'Railway, Nizamabad']

..,ResPondents

Application under Section [11 (5) and (6) ][of ][the ][Arbitration ][and ][conciliation]Act, 1996 and scheme [of ][Appointment ][of ][Arbitrator praying ][that ][for the ][reasons]stated in the affidavit [filed therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be ][pleased to ][to ][appoint ][an]arbitrator to resolve the [dispute ][between ][the ][parties which arose under ][the]No. o9/CAO/C/SC:2O14 [dated.04t0212014 ][of Arbitration and conciliation]Agreement Act, 1996 and Rules [framed ][there ][under ][and ][pass such orders as ][the ][Hon',ble ][High]Court may deem [fit ][and proper ][in ][the circumstances ][of ][the case']

Thisapplicationcomingonforhearing,uponperusingtheapplicationandaffidavit filed in support [thereof, and upon ][hearing ][the ][arguments ][of ][Sri ][somanchi]Venkateswarlu, Advocate [for the ][applicant ][and ][of ][Sri ][c.V.Rajeeva ][Reddy, ][learned]counsel for the Respondent [Nos.1 to ][3.]

The Court made [the ][following: ][ORDER]

IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER [REDI)\']

Alil]I]-It.,\1'loN .\PPLIC,,\TION No.52 [OI" ][2020]

ol{l)llll:

'fhis Arbitration Application is trled under Section I I (5) & (6) ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act, [1996 ][(for ][shorl ]["the ][Act") ][seeking]to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between [the ][parties which]arose under the Agreement No.09/CAO/ClSCl20l4 [dated 04.02.20 ][14.]

2. The applicant and the 2nd respondent entered [into ][an ][agreement]vide No.09iC AOlClSClz}l4, dated 04.02.2014, lor [laying ][Jagityal-]Nizanrabad New BG line and linking BG track and [connected ][works]liom Ch 134000.0 mts to 150000.0 mts, between [Mortad and ][Arnroor]stations including laying [points ]and crossings in [Mortad ][and Armoor]yard. The revised value of the work was Rs.3,00,25,611 [.12 ][ps;, and ][a]period of six months was fixed from 21.04.2014 [for ][completion ][ol ][the]work. Immediately after [receipt ]of [the ][acceptance ][letter, the ][applicant]commenced the work and [completed ][the ][work. ][The ][respondents ][also]satisfied with the work and [issued experience ][certificate ][to ][that ][effect']But, the respondents did [not pay ][the ][final ][bill. ][The applicant ][requested]the respondents several times [to ][release ][the ][final ][bill. ][The ][3'd ][respondent]issued reply to the applicant stating [that ][in ][view ][of ][the ][theft ][that ][took]place at the work site, they cannot close the [agreement. However, ][the]applicant is not liable [for ]the [theft ][that ][took ][place ][in ][the ][work ][place ][and]he is entitled for the amounts [due ][to ][him. ][The ][respondents ][have]deliberately violated the terms [and conditions ][of ][the ][contract and ][not]released the tinal bill and other [deposited ][amounts ][pending ][with ][them.]

Therefore, [the applicant ][decided ][to ][invoke ][the ][Arbitration ][clause and to]settle the [issues ][by way ][of ][Arbitration' ][Hence' ][he issued ][statutory ][notice]to the [respondents ][demanding them ][to ][appoint an ][arbitrator ][as ][per ][the]tenns and [conditions of ][the ][contract' ][But' ][the respondents ][did not ][choose]to appoint [an arbitrator ][or ][to ][give any ][reply' ][Therefore' ][the ][present]Arbitration [APPIication is ][filed']

3. Heard [Sri ][Somanchi Venakteswarlu' learned counsel ][for ][the]applicant [and ][Sri ][C'V' ][Rajeeva ][Reddy' ][learned counsel appearing ][lor ][the]respondents.

4. Learnedcounselfortherespondentssubnritsthattherespondents [have ][no ][objection ]['for ][appointment ][of ][Departmental]Arbitrator [in ][terms ][of ][Clause ][64 ][of ][the ][general ][terms ][and ][conditions ][of]the contract. [Leamed ][counsel ][for ][the petitioner also ][states ][that ][the]petitioner [has ][no objection ][for ][appointment ][of ][Arbitrator ][in ][terms ][of ][the]clause [64 ][of ][the ][general ][tetms ][and ][conditions ][of ][the ][contract and ][they]have also [subnritted ][that the ][issue ][itr ][the ][present ][case ][is ][covered ][by ][the]dccisio. [of ][the ][Supreme ][courl in central ][organisation ][for ][Railway]Electrification [v' ][ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML ][(JV) (2020(l) ][ALT ][70 ][SC)']

5 ' ln [view ][of ][ttre ][submissions ][of ][both the ][learned counsel' ][this]Arbitration [Application ][is ][disposed ][of ][directing ][the ][General ][Manager']South [Central ][Railway' Rail Nilayam' ][Secunderabad' ][to ][take action by]selecting [a ][panel ][of ][Arbitrators ][to ][enable ][the petitioner ][to ][choose ][one ][of]them as [the ][Arbitrator' ][within ][a ][period ][of ][two ][(2) months ][from ][the ][date ][of]receiPt [of ][a ][coPY ][of this ][order']

i

6. It is stated by the learned [Standing Counsel ][for ][Railways ][that]

the Railways are also have claim [over the objections ][and also ][entitled ][to]raise the counter claim.

7. It is open for both the [pa(ies ][to ][raise ][their ][respective ][claims]before the Arbitrator. The [leamed ][Arbitrator ][is entitled ][to ][fees ][as ][per ][the]rates specified in the Fourth Schedule [to ][the ][Act ][of ][1996, inserled by]Act 3 of 2016 with effect from 23-10-2015, [which ][shall ][be ][borne ][by ][both]pamies in equal shares.

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, [il ][any, pending]

in the Arbitration Application, shall stand closed.

SD/. K.GANGADHAR [RAO]JOINT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . One CC to Sri Somanchi [Venkateswarlu, Advocate ][OPUC]2. One CC to Sri C. V. Rajeeva [Reddy, ][Advocate ][OPUC]3. Two CD CoPiesq^- I

!

HIGH [COURT]ARRJDATED:30 [t1212020]

1r'TA I4:Y/..g zoJAt{2021a[Z]-v..;S4!./*4lcu ORDERARB/APPL'No'52 [of ][2020]

DISPOSING [OF ][THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION]

ss'J . r\CoP 'ao,)k [ra\or\*-]