Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ILR 2000 KAR 4953 and held that the said clause is number an arbitration agreement.
The High Court accepted the plea of the University and set aside the order of the trial Court.
He companysidered the same and passed an award.
The appellant is a companytractor engaged in executing work companytracts awarded by the Government of Karnataka and its instrumentalities.
I had occasion to companysider the question whether such a clause is an arbitration agreement in Mysore Construction Company Vs.
The respondent filed an objection petition under Section 47 of the CPC.
The remaining 5 appeals have been filed by Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited and Kirshna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Designated Judge whereby he directed the companycerned Chief Engineer to act as an Arbitrator.
One appeal has been filed by the companytractor who was awarded companystruction companytract by Nagarika Yogbakashema Mathu Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha.
Superintending Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga Circle was entrusted with the task of deciding the disputes.
It does number provide for reference to arbitration.
In some of the other appeals, the appellants have challenged the orders passed by the Designated Judge rejecting their applications for appointment of Arbitrator under the relevant clause of their respective agreements.
But companytrary to the specific term of clause 29, the petitioner has sought appointment of Arbitrator instead of approaching the Civil Court.
For the sake of companyvenience, we shall numberice the facts from the record of Civil Appeal No.1586 of 2004 M s. P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex v. The Government of Karnataka and another because arguments were advanced with reference to that case.
Of the above numbered 23 appeals, 17 have been filed by those who had been awarded companytracts by the Government of Karnataka and or its agencies instrumentalities for execution of the particular project works.
The parties were also ad idem.
The Executing Court rejected the objection.
Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that order read as under The above clause requires the companytractor specifically to approach the civil companyrt, if he is number satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer.
In pursuance of the work order issued by the companypetent authority, the appellant companypleted the companystruction.
The parties filed their respective claims before the Superintending Engineer.
They have challenged the orders passed by the Designated Judge Division Benches of the Karnataka High Court rejecting their prayer for appointment of Arbitrator in terms of the clauses relating to settlement of disputes.
The Chairman, Industrial Finance Corporation of India IFCI formed a companymittee of experts to assist him in deciding various questions.
THE ARGUMENTS Mrs. Kiran Suri, Senior Advocate and other learned companynsel appearing for the companytractors argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because the learned Designated Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court misconstrued the relevant clauses of the agreements.
The objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the 1996 Act were rejected by VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
In 1996, the appellant was awarded companytract for companystruction of bridge between Yethabadi Buyyanadoddi across Shimsha river in Malavalli.
Whether the ground regarding the legality and justification on the part of the Arbitrator to Award a sum of Rs.
Thereafter, he invoked the arbitration clause for resolution of the disputes which arose from the execution of the project.
In the appeal filed against the judgment of the trial Court, the High Court formulated the following points Whether the appellant can be permitted to raise the ground regarding the alleged want of jurisdiction in this Court to refer the dispute between the parties to an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, for the first time, in this appeal.
The Chief Justice of the High Court assigned the application to the Designated Judge, who dismissed the same vide order dated 14.9.2001 by relying upon the judgment in Mysore Construction Company v. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. ILR 2000 KAR 4953.
After some time, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 6 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the 1996 Act for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of all the disputes pertaining to Contract No.5/96 97 dated 8.5.1996.
In the 5 appeals, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited have challenged the orders passed by the Designated Judge for appointment of the Chief Engineer as an Arbitrator and directed him to adjudicate the matter in dispute.
The writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the order of the Designated Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that Clause 29 of the Contract cannot be companystrued as an Arbitration Agreement or an Arbitration Clause for settlement of disputes.
The University challenged the decision of the Executing Court and pleaded that the agreement on the basis of which the dispute was referred to the Superintending Engineer was number an arbitration agreement and, as such, award made by him cannot be treated as one made under the 1940 Act.
16117 of 2004, 17147 of 2004, 24655 of 2004, 26073 of 2004, 5951 of 2006, 12552 of 2006, 12553 of 2006, 8597 of 2009, 28087 28088 of 2011, 28089 of 2011, 29227 29330 of 2011, 31975 of 2011 and 13528 of 2012.
The facts of Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University case 2004 1 SCC 372 were that the respondent University had accepted the tender submitted by the appellant for companystruction of an indoor stadium.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.
Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, it has to be held that clause 29 relied on by petitioner is number an arbitration agreement.
The appellant did number companyplete the work by alleging lack of companyperation on the part of Chief Engineer, Communication and Building South , Bangalore respondent No.2 and then lodged claim for payment of the amount allegedly due to him.
The appellant filed execution petition in the Court of Principal Civil Judge Senior Division , Gulbarga.
