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
Sekar Reporter
·
May 4, 2020
[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