M/S.Step Up Enterprises v. M/S.Karvy Renewable Energy Projects Limited
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A, RAJASHEKER REDDY ARBITRATIO N APPLICAT ION NO: 54 OF 2020 Between:
lv/s step up Enterprises, A partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, niuing its'Principbl Place of Business at No.3/1228 F., Adhiyaman Street..V Jettih;lli Road, Vennampatti, Dharmapuri - 636 705 and having its^branch otlrce ;iN".r0 Royat Garden Annex / KattLipakkam,.Thiruvallur District, Chennai - 600 OLO'r"pi".",itud by its Director Business Development Sri K. Saravanan, S/o. S. Kathirvel.
...Applicant AND M/s Karvy Renewable Energy Projects Limited, A company incorporated under ine proviiions of Companiei-Act, 2013, having its reglstered Office al Karvy iliillennium - Plot No.3i, Nanakramguda Financial District' Gachibowli, HvO"rjOiO Rangareddy District - 5-00032, represented by its chairman and M-anaging Director Sri C. Parthasarathy.
...ResPondent Arbitration Application under section '1 1 (4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators, praying that this High Court may be Pleased ,,To appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the Applicant and Respondent in respect to Work Order No.KREPL/WO/TSRTC / BOS/1 B-1 9/001A dt.20.09.201 8 To award the costs of application and I To pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and ilr proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NADELLA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI ROHIT POGULA The Court made the following: ORDER
I{ON'I}LE SRI JUSTICI.- A. ITAJASIIL,KEII I{EDDY l\ IIIIITRATION,,\ PPl. I CA'l'l ON No.54 OF 2020 ORDIiR:
This Arbitration Application is tlled under Section I I (4) & (6) of tlie Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for shorl "the Act") seeking to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the claims and disputes between the Applicant and Respondent in respect of the work Order No.KREPL/WO/ TSRTC/BOS/18-19/001A, dt.20.09.2018, and to award costs to the applicant.
2. 1'he applicant company is a registered Partnership Firm uncler the Partnership Act and carrying on the business o1'supply ol solar I)roducts and allied services. T'he Respondent coutpuny is u contprtrrl incorporated under the Cou.rpanies Act. The applicant and the respondent entered into a work order tbr Supply, lnstallation and Commissioning of Solar Roofiop Power Plants vide Work Order dated 14.09.2018 and Amended Work Order d1.20.09.2018 (for short 'Agreement'). By the said Agreement, the applicant shall supply, install and commission the Solar Rooftop Power Plants at the sites specified by the Respondent company or its authorized personnel as per the specifications provided therein. The Agreement contains Arbitration clause, as per which the disputes between the pa(ies shall be finally settled and governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Arbitration Panel shall consist ol three arbitrators, one to be appointecl by each party and the thircl arbitrator shall be appointed by the trvo appointed a rb itrators.
,) The applicant completed the works in accordance with the agreement and handed it over to the respondent. The applicant raised invoices for the work done by it. However, the respondent failed to pay the entire due amounts as claimed under the invoices. Subsequently, various communications were sent by the applicant to the respondent requesting for payment. Thereafter, in pursuance to the resolution clause, the applicant was constrained to issue an arbitration notice fbr the outstanciing dues. The respondent sent his reply with sonre other allegations. They have neither come forward to appoint arbitrator liom their side nor replied on the said aspect. Thererore, this Arbitration Application is filed seeking to nominate and appoint a Sole Arbitrator.
3. Heard Sri N. Venakteswara Rao, the leamed counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit pogula, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. At the time of arguments both the learned counsel state that a Sole Arbitrator may be appointed though the Arbitration clause in the Agreeme rrt provides 1br appointrnent of three Arbitrators.
5. In view ol the said submission of both the learnecl counsel. this Arbitration Application is allowed, nominating Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, (Retired District Judge) as the sole Arbitrator. It is open fbr both the parlies to raise their respective claims before the Arbitrator.
6. The learned Arbitrator is entitled to fees as per the rates specifGd in the Fourth Schedule to the Act of 1996, inserted by Act 3 of
\-:-__ ) 2016 with etfect from 23_10_2015. which shall be bome by borh parties in equal shares.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the Arbitration Application, shall stand closed. I SdIB.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR A'/'
SECTION OFFICER
1. Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Retired District Judge, H.No. 305, Alekhya Residency, vegetabre Market Street, r.r, ri, r,,r.,tr, Hyderabad-SO0 044. (By Special IMessenger) (Arong with a copy Arbitration Apprication affidavit and materiar papers fred with A.A)
2. One CC to Sri Nadella Venkateswara Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 3 one CC to Srj Rohit poguta, aovocaie iOpuCi"""''
4. Two CD Copies //TRUE COPY'
To,
HIGH COURT ARRJ DATED:301121202O l4 s e o ,
ORDER
ARB.APPL.No.54 ot 2020 oo 11 JAt{ 2tr2t z * * ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLILCATION WITHOUT COSTS /r 51 2D4