Jharkhand High Court
M/S Padmanathan Construction ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Arbitration Appeal No.16 of 2007
M/s Padmanathan Construction Company Private Limited
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
With
Arbitration Appeal No.03 of 2008
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
M/s Padmanathan Construction Company Private Ltd.
... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG II
: Mrs. Surbhi, Advocate
---
21/17.02.2023 Arbitration Appeal No.16 of 2007
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that
so far as termination of agreement is concerned, Clause 52 of the
contract does not provide arbitration for termination rather, it was
only for the matters which cropped up during the implementation of
the project. Thus, the dispute regarding termination was not arbitrable.
2. He has further submitted that the termination of the contract
was done as back as on 15.03.1997 and the request case was filed only
in the year 2001 and therefore, the challenge to termination was itself
barred by limitation. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 5 SCC 738
(Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Anr. Vs. Nortel Networks India
Private Limited) to submit that when no period of limitation has been
prescribed, then Article 137 of the Limitation Act will come into play
and the termination could have been challenged only within a period
of three years from the date of termination.
3. He has also submitted that challenge to termination of
contract was barred by the principle of res judicata. A petition under
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was initially filed before the District
Judge on 01.07.1997 which was returned and re-filed before the Sub
Judge on 16.09.1997 and in the said case, a petition was filed by the
appellant for referring the dispute regarding termination of contract to
arbitration, but the said plea was rejected. Against the order of
rejection by the learned Sub Judge, the appellant preferred a civil
revision, which was withdrawn on 09.02.2001.
4. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
a petition seeking amendment was filed before the learned Sub Judge
and learned Sub Judge while dismissing the amendment application
observed that the scope of injunction was limited and it could not be
extended by allowing the amendment and thereafter, the civil revision
was filed and ultimately, when it was withdrawn in 2001, the request
case was filed for appointment of arbitrator. It has been submitted that
the cause of action continued and the arbitration proceedings which
had commenced in connection with other disputes on 10.07.1997 was
still continuing.
5. Argument concluded in Arbitration Appeal No.16 of 2007.
6. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the matters be
adjourned for argument of the other connected case.
7. Considering the submissions made, post these cases on
01.03.2023 to be taken up at 2.15 p.m.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
