The Chief Project Manager vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 2011 Kant

                           -1-            MFA NO. 3148/2016


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

              MFA NO.3148 OF 2016 (AA)

BETWEEN:

1.   THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER
     M/S RITES LTD.,
     II FLOOR, NO.209
     SWAPANALOK COMPLEX
     SAROJINIDEVI ROAD
     SECUNDERABAD-500003

2.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
     M/S RITES LIMITED, RITES
     OFFICE COMPLEX
     FLAT NO.1, SECTOR 29,
     GURGAON-122001, HARYANA

     (THE APPELLANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY
     DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P)
     SMT. REKHA AHMED)
                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY.A.M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE COMMISSIONER
     CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
     CHINTAMANI
     CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563123

2.   THE JOINT SECRETARY-ARBITRATOR
     MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES &
     PUBLIC ENTERPRISES
     ROOM NO.315, BLOCK NO.14
     PUBLIC ENTERPRISES BHAVAN
                                 -2-          MFA NO. 3148/2016


     CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD
     NEW DELHI-110001
                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH KUMAR.R.V, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. ANIYAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(B) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.1.2016 PASSED IN
A.A.NO.1/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, CHICKABALLAPUR, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This case is taken up in the revised list. None appears for the appellant to prosecute the appeal.

2. The order sheet reveals that on last several dates, the case has been adjourned due to non-availability of counsel for the appellant.

3. There is no request for adjournment or pass over. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in default, as well as for want of prosecution.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE ln