SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA O.P.No.549 of 2019 & A.No.4849 of 2019 M/s.Resurgent Power Projects Limited–Jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, does not find any ground for interference. The Original Petition stands dismissed.

by ·

[5/4, 08:16] Sekarreporter: O.P.No.549 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
O.P.No.549 of 2019
&
A.No.4849 of 2019
M/s.Resurgent Power Projects Limited
(formerly M/s.Enmas GB Power
Systems Projects Limited,
at IV Floor, Guna Building Main,
No.443, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018).
Presently having office at
Old No.484 – 485, New No.28-30, 2nd Floor
Pantheon Plaza, Pantheon Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008
Rep. by its Director
Mr.N.K.Gopinath … Petitioner
Vs
M/s.ABB India Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Shri.Rahul Agarwal,
Office at 21st Floor, World Trade Centre,
Brigade Gateway,
26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road,
Malleshwaram West,
Bengaluru – 560 055 … Respondents
1/32
[5/4, 08:16] Sekarreporter: O.P.No.549 of 2019
Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated
23.10.2017 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.
For Petitioner : Mr.Umasudan
for Mr.T.R.Sundaram
For Respondent : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh
O R D E R
The respondent in the Claim Petition is the petitioner in the
above petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996,(hereinafter called the Act) challenging the
award passed by the sole arbitrator in A.F.No.93 of 2015 dated
23.10.2017. It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts
preceeding the passing of the award in order to morefully
appreciate the grounds on which the respondent before the
arbitral tribunal seeks to challenge the award dated 23.10.2017.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the Claimant that the
2/32
[5/4, 08:17] Sekarreporter: O.P.No.549 of 2019
or the contents of the same. A bonafide litigant would
immediately, on coming to know about the passing of the award,
approach the Arbitrator with a request to provide him with a copy
so as to enable him to take a decision on challenging the same or
satisfying the award.
Since this Court is dismissing the petition on the ground
of limitation, the discussion on the second point for consideration
becomes purely academic. However, with reference to the same,
it is seen that by letter dated 15.11.2011, Ex.C.3 the claimant
had sought for an extension of time for completion of the project
upto November 2011 and synchronizing by December 2011. The
respondent had not given a reply to the said letter, but they have
however, permitted the claimant to proceed with the work. If the
respondent was aggrieved by the delay it was well open to them
to exercise the rights conferred upon them under Article 10 of the
Supply Agreement dated 01.07.2009. Having failed to invoke the
said clause and after permitting the claimant to proceed with the
30/32
[5/4, 08:17] Sekarreporter: O.P.No.549 of 2019
work the respondent cannot now question the dismissal of their
counter claim. The arbitrator taking note of the delay has
imposed liquidated damages on the claimant which has not been
challenged by them.
Considering the fact that the petition is barred by
limitation and as there is no patent illegality or perversity in the
order passed by the arbitral tribunal this Court exercising
Jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, does not find any ground for interference. The Original
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Application
is also closed. No costs.
06.01.2020
kan
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
31/32

You may also like...

Call Now ButtonCALL ME