← Library
Madras High CourtArb O.P(COM.DIV.)/341/2024dismissed

M/S. R.G. And Co., v. The Superintending Engineer (High Ways)

2024-10-18Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 18.10.2024 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Arb.OP(Com.Div.) No.341 of 2024 M/s.R.G.&Co., Engineering Contractors, Highways and Railways, 83/1, R.R.Illam, Kurinji Nagar, Vazhapadi Post, Salem - 636 115.

... Petitioner /versus/

1. The Superintending Engineer [High Ways], Chennai Projects Circle, BSNL Telephone Exchange Building, Alandur, Chennai.

2. The Divisional Engineer [High Ways] Project Division, Cuddalore.

3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer [High Ways], Projects Sub Division, Kattumannarkovil, Cuddalore.

... Respondents Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arisen under the Partnership deed dated 08.10.2018 between the petitioner and the respondents.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathy For Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arisen under the Arbitration Agreement dated 08.10.2018 between the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner is one of the contractor in the Highways Department. He had entered into a contract with the first respondent for construction of a High level bridge across the surplus canal of Wellington Reservoir at K.M.3/8 of Thittagudi - Sirupakkam Road, Kattumannar Koil Project Sub Division, Cuddalore District on 08.10.2018. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had completed the bridge work and unable to complete the approach road of the bridge as the land for forming approach road of the bridge was not acquired and handed over to the petitioner. Though the petitioner requested the respondents to acquire the land for laying approach road, so far no land has been acquired and the respondents failed to

respond for the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a request to foreclose the contract dated 08.10.2018 and release the amount withheld by the respondents which had been deposited by the petitioner. The total value of the contract is Rs.707.24 lakhs. So far the petitioner had completed 75% of the work, i.e., Rs.528.49 lakhs. The remaining work has to be done only after acquisition and handing over of the land for approach road. While being so, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for termination of the contract and black listing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner caused a legal notice dated 01.06.2023 to the second respondent stating that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs.14,20,000/- on 17.07.2018 and a sum of Rs.10,70,000/- on 05.10.2018 for EMD and FSD for the contract. That apart, the petitioner had already raised a dispute and called for arbitration to settle the dispute between the them. Even then the respondents failed to come forward to settle the dispute. Hence, this petition for appointment of an arbitrator.

3. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, as per the clause No.59 of the Arbitration Agreement dated 08.10.2018 if the claim exceeds Rs.2,00,000/- and hence, the same has to be referred Civil Court having jurisdiction for decision. Therefore, submitted that the request seeking appointment of an arbitrator does not arise since Clause 59 of the agreement dated

08.10.2018 makes it clear that if the claim exceeds monetary value of Rs.2.00 lakhs, it shall be referred to the Civil Court having jurisdiction for decision.

4. Admittedly, the claim of the petitioner is more than Rs.2.00 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court for appropriate relief as per the clause 59 of the agreement dated 08.10.2018. Hence, this Court is not inclined to appoint an arbitrator.

5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

18.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking vrc

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

vrc Arb.OP(Com.Div.) No.341 of 2024 18.10.2024