ARBAPPL/57/2025 of T.C. RAGHAVAN ASSOCIATES Vs UNION OF INDIA on 13 April 2026

ORDER:

The insr:ant Arbitration Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Rules framed under praying the Court to appoint a person, conversant with disputes arising out of construction contracts as sole arbitrator for the purpose of adjudication of dispute that arose between the parties as per C1ause 2',5 of the General Conditions of Contract to letter of acceptance dated Ol.O4.2O2l and for costs.

2. Heard Mr. P. Vishnu Vardhan, learned counsel for the applicant; and Mr. K. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The applicant herein is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of carrying out work contracts; and respondent herein is the Union of India acting through its Executive Engineer Hyderabad - IV, Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D.).

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent had invited tenders for construction of Eklar5ra Model Residential School (E.M.R.S.), at Kothaguda, Mahabubabad District, Telangana; the applicant responded to the tender and submitted its bid, and a work contract was awarded to the applicant vide Letter of Acceptance d.ated OL.O4.2O21; as per the terms of the contract entered into between the applicant and the respondent, the work was originally stipulated to be completed within 360 days; however, the work could not be commenced by the applicant for various reasons including on account of delay in issuance of letter for commencement of work and also on account of the fact that Letter of Acceptance was issued to the applicant during peak COVID - 19 second wave. I

5. Learne:d counsel for the applicant further submitted that despite all efforts takerr by the applicant to complete the work within the stipulated date, the wrrk could not be cornpleted within the stipulated time for various reasons including delay in providing essentiA aetails, structural drawings, pr:rmissions and approvals for materials, ffik designs, etc. by the respondr:nt; though respondent unilaterally proceeded to terminate the contract vide letter datgd 07.O2.2O23, tlre applicant vide letter dated 29.03.2023 strongly objected to such unlawful termination of the contract by ':he respondent; thereafter, the applicant had made several requests to the respondent to withdraw the termination of contract, however the respondent failed to comply with the requisitions contained in the letter addressed by the applicant on 18.03.2024.

6. Learnei counsel for the applicant further submitted that since disputes and differences arose between the parties, the applicant herein addressed a letter dated 16.04.2024 caJling upon the respondent to take further steps to refer the dispute to a Dispute Redressal Committee; however, the respondent neither settled nor paid the amounts claimed by the appellant, nor did the respondent constitute a Dispute Redressal Committee f<rr adjudication' of the disputes between the parties; therefore, thre applicant invoked arbitration clamse vide its letter dated r".-\

05.06.2024; after invocation of arbitration clause, the respondent addressed a letter dated 12.06.2024 informing the applicant that the dispute had been referred to a Dispute Redressal Committee; however, the applicant replied that the applicant was not contractually bound to participate in the proceedings before the Dispute Redressal Committee as it had already invoked arbitration clause for referring the dispute; after persuasion by the respondent, the applicant submitted its claim statement along with necessary documents to the said Dispute Redressal Committee.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Dispute Redressal Committee, vide its report dated O2.O9.2O24, rendered its decision by rejecting majority of claim of the applicant; therefore, the applicant had filed the instant arbitration application invoking arbitration clause, viz., Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, 2O2O vide its letter dated 05.06.2024, which provided for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in the matter.

8. on 04.04.2025, notice was ord.ered to the respondent, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent had entered appearance and filed counter-aflidavit in the matter. . .. "'.." , -.:

Page,S of 6

9. Perused the record.

10. Having: heard the contentions put forth on either side and also taking into the consideration the contents of letter dated 05.06.2024 addressed blr the applicant to the respondent, there seems to be a clear dispute raised by either parties which needs to be decided in the course of arbitration proceedings by invoking Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract,2O2O. Therefore, this Court is of the considered *. opinion that the instant arbitration application can be allowed by referring the matter to a sole arbitrator.

11. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Virendra Kumar Verma, resident of Flat No.1125, Prestige tvy [,eague, Hitech City Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 5OO 084, Mobile No.77O24 22822, Mail ID : Vkvr-'rma83@rediffmail.com, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute betwe'en the parties.

12. Needles:; to state that both parties are at liberty to raise all claims and counter <:laims before the sole arbitrator who in turn shall conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Act. The venue of arbitration shall be decided mutually by the parties subject L ,.,,-,,,,-,'--.."&#

'!

to consultation and agreement of the learned Arbitrator. The fee payable to the learned Arbitrator shall also be decided mutually by the parties in consultation and agreement with the learned Arbitrator.

13. The Arbitration Application stands allowed as above. No costs.

14. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shatl stand closed. /TRUE COPY" sD,-K?$+NlEt?sEiR

SECTION OFFICER To, N" l.SriVirendraKumarVerma,residentofFlatNo.ll25,PrestigelvyLeague' Hitech City Road' Kondapur' fiVO"-t'U"J' f-"t"no"n' 5OO 084' Mobile No.77024 zzazz, Mail ^ to, '''iti"irlbeOt"Jiit*"ir'"om(Bv Special Messenger)(Alongwithacoll"i;ff'd";iiai.umateria!papers}

2. one CC to SRI' p tTlsr-ruu VARDHAN' Advocate toPucl

3. .One CC to SRI' K MOHAN' Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies ADICKA * t

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310412026 .TH

ORDER

o ARBAPPL.No.S7 of 2025 O

* {)! ALLOWING THE ARBAPPL WITHOU'T COSTS '),\\ v\ o TA I i\ *