Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Renewable Energy ... vs M/S Mecamidi Hpp India Private Ltd on 22 October, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 255 of 2023
Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (JREDA), (State
Government Agency under Department of Energy, Jharkhand), having
its office at 3rd Floor, SLDC Building, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi, through its Director Kameshwar Kant Verma,
aged about 61 years, son of late Brij Mohan Prasad, presently working
and posted as Director, JREDA, having its office at 3rd Floor, SLDC
Building, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
.............. Appellant
Versus
1. M/s MECAMIDI HPP India Private Ltd., having its Office at B-156,
Freedom Fighter Enclave, P.O. & P.S. Neg Sarai, New Delhi, District
New Delhi 110058 through its Authorized Signatory Ram Gopal
Jalindra, son of Om Prakash Jalindra, resident of 1928, 19th Floor,
Vinayak Tower, Mahagunpuram, NH 24, P.O. & P.S. Ghaziabad,
District Ghaziabad - 201002, Uttar Pradesh.
2. M/s Bihar State Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd., through its
Managing Director, having its office at Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
Marg, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District-Patna 800001, Bihar.
............... Respondents
With
L.P.A. No. 304 of 2023
Jharkhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (JREDA), (State
Government Agency under Department of Energy, Jharkhand), having
its office at 3rd Floor, SLDC Building, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District Ranchi, through its Director Kamleshwar Kant
Verma, aged about 61 years, son of late Brij Mohan Prasad, presently
working and posted as Director, JREDA, having its office at 3rd Floor,
SLDC Building, Kusai Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
.............. Appellant
Versus
1. M/s MECAMIDI HPP India Private Ltd., having its Office at B-156,
Freedom Fighter Enclave, P.O. & P.S. Neb Sarai, New Delhi, District
New Delhi 110058 through its Authorized Signatory Ram Gopal
Jalindra, son of Om Prakash Jalindra, resident of 1928, 19th Floor,
Vinayak Tower, Mahagunpuram, NH 24, P.O. & P.S. Ghaziabad,
District Ghaziabad - 201002, Uttar Pradesh.
2. M/s Bihar State Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Ltd., through its
Managing Director, having its office at Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel
Marg, P.O. & P.S. Patna, District-Patna 800001, Bihar.
............... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate
-1 of 4-
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate.
: Miss Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate.
: Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate.
---------
C.A.V. On: 16.10.2024 Delivered On: 22.10.2024
----------
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1) In these two Letters Patent Appeals, orders passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 101 of 2023 and W.P. (C) No. 4255 of
2021 are impugned.
2) The grievance of the appellant/Writ petitioner in these cases is that
the sole arbitrator at the Delhi International Arbitration Center in Case
Ref No. DA1C/1616(D)/03-17 arising out of MSEFC Case No. 50 of
2016 had erroneously impleaded through an order passed on
12.03.2020, the appellant, as respondent no. 2 in an arbitration
proceeding initiated by respondent no. 1 pertaining to a dispute of
money claim between respondent nos. 1 and 2, which had failed in
conciliation proceedings before the Micro and Small Enterprises
Felicitation Council, Government of NCT, Delhi under the Micro, Small
and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006; and that when the
appellant/petitioner filed an application for deleting its name from the
array of parties by recalling the order dated 12.03.2020, the said
application was dismissed on 02.12.2022 by the said Arbitrator.
3) The learned Single Judge in the impugned order had dismissed the
Writ petitions noting that the application for deletion of the appellant's
name from the array of parties, was not maintainable, at that stage; that
the Arbitrator has not taken a final call regarding the deletion of the
-2 of 4-
appellant as a party in the proceedings; the issue as to whether the
appellant could have been made a party in the arbitration proceeding, is
an issue, which would fall for consideration by the Arbitrator before or
at the time of the Award being passed in the arbitral proceedings; and
since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( for short 'the Act') is
a complete Code, there is a remedy to challenge any Award passed in
that regard under Section 34 of the said Act.
4) The learned Single Judge also recorded that she did not find any
compelling circumstances to exercise power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaven Construction vs.
Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited &
Another1, wherein, the Supreme Court had held that under Section 5 of
the Act, there is a prohibition for intervention by a judicial authority,
except in the manner provided in the Act; that the said provision
contains a non obstante clause to uphold the intention of the legislature
to reduce excessive judicial interference, which is not contemplated
under the Act; that it is prudent for a Judge to not exercise discretion to
allow judicial interference beyond the procedure established under the
enactment; that the power to intervene needs to be exercised in
exceptional rarity, wherein one party is left remediless under the Statute
or a clear bad faith is shown by one of the parties.
5) Though counsel for the appellant sought to contend that this view
taken by the learned Single Judge is not proper, we are in complete
(2022) 1 SCC 75
-3 of 4-
agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hold that
by mere impleadment of the appellant in the arbitral proceedings, no
grave prejudice of a compelling nature is caused to the appellant and the
case certainly does not fall in the category of one of 'exceptional rarity',
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6) Therefore, both the appeals [L.P.A. No. 255 of 2023 with L.P.A.
No. 304 of 2023] are dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand) each to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within six
weeks.
7) Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
N.A.F.R.
APK
-4 of 4-
