i after the companypletion of the main companytract in March April, 2002 and on final payment on 30th January, 2003, the companytract came to an end and, therefore, there was numbervalid arbitration agreement in existence and ii the claim of the DHV is stale and barred by limitation.
Both the respondents refused to refer the disputes to arbitration, necessitating the filing of the present petition for the appointment of an Arbitrator.
As per clause 1.10 of the special companyditions of the main companytract, TNPWD had agreed to bear the Income tax liabilities on payments to be made by it to the companysultant, sub consultants and their personnel.
The facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, are as follows On 1st December, 1997, an agreement hereinafter referred to as the main companytract was signed between Tahal and TNPWD, with DHV and two other companycerns, namely, Lahmeyer International of Germany and Consulting Engineering Services India Ltd., as sub companysultants, for providing management companysultancy and technical assistance services for the Tamil Nadu Water Resources Consolidation Project.
Seemingly, DHV objected to the said numberices but later on submitted the requisite returns of income, including therein the receipts from TNPWD.
However, both the respondents denied their liability to reimburse the said amount to DHV.
DHV was to receive all the payments through Tahal, being the principal companysultant.
The companytract was duly performed and DHV received all payments in respect of the invoices raised by them for the services rendered.
TNPWD opposes the petition mainly on the ground that i DHV being a sub consultant has numberlocus standi to invoke the arbitration agreement qua them as numberpayment was received by DHV directly from TNPWD ii the claim of DHV is barred by limitation inasmuch as the main companytract was over on 31st March, 2002 and iii there was numbercause of action to file the petition because whatever Income tax was to be deducted on payments to Tahal the principal companysultant, was duly deposited with the State Bank of India and requisite details were filed with the Income tax department.
I have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Respondent No.1 M s Tahal Consulting Engineers Limited hereinafter referred to as Tahal is also a companysultant foreign companypany based in Israel and respondent No.2 is the Water Resources Organisation, PWD, Government of Tamil Nadu hereinafter referred to as TNPWD .
They were required to submit their returns of income for the said assessment years.
Subsequently, in March, 1998, a further sub consultancy agreement hereinafter referred to as the sub contract was signed between Tahal and DHV for providing services in respect of the main companytract, scope whereof was defined in the companyditions of both the said agreements.
Having paid the said additional demand on 15th March, 2005, DHV issued legal numberices to Tahal and TNPWD, asking them to settle the dispute amicably in terms of clause 8.1 of the General Conditions of the main companytract, dated 1st December, 1997.
Both Tahal and TNPWD have filed companynter affidavits resisting the petition.
In support of the proposition that the entire tax obligation under the companytract has been duly discharged, learned companynsel for the TNPWD invited my attention to some companyrespondence with the Income tax authorities, wherein the rate at which Income tax was to be deducted on payment under the companytract has been indicated.
O R D E R K. JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short the Act for the appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which are stated to have arisen between the parties.
The petitioner M s DHV Consultants BV for short DHV is a foreign companypany registered in Netherlands, providing companysultancy and engineering group services in aviation spatial planning in environment, transportation and water with expertise in water management and water planning.
