Madras High Court
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs Chennai Water Desalination Ltd on 24 January, 2023
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002. ...Appellant
in both appeals
-Vs-
Chennai Water Desalination Ltd.,
No.30-A, South Phase, 6th Cross Street,
Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032. ...Respondent
in both appeals
Common Prayer:- Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of
O.S. Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order
and decreetal order in A.S.Nos.5315 & 5316 of 2012 dated 25.04.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
For Appellant
in both appeals : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.Gautham Raman
For Respondent
in both appeals : M/s.Rahul Balaji
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.,]
These appeals are filed by the appellant/Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board against the common fair and decreetal order of the
learned Single Judge of this Court made in A.Nos.5315 and 5316 of 2012 dated
25.04.2013 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2.IInd set of Memo of Grounds in O.S.A.No.275 of 2013 is not available
in the bundle.
3.The respondent/Chennai Water Desalination Limited in these appeals is
the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
4.The appellant is the Statutory Body established to meet the increasing
demand of Water Supply and Sewerage Service in the Chennai Metropolitan
Area. The appellant had entered into a Bulk Water Purchase Agreement
(BWPA) on 13.09.2005 with the respondent/Chennai Water Desalination
Limited regarding the supply of potable water in bulk for distribution in the
Chennai Metropolitan Area. It is stated that the project is one by way of Public-
Private Partnership. It is admitted that there is an arbitration clause in the
agreement between the appellant and the respondent. Since a dispute arose
regarding the supply of potable water and payment, the respondent filed
applications in A.Nos.5315 and 5316 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Arbitration
Act, 1996, to pass an interim direction to the appellant to forthwith release all
payments against the invoices raised by the respondent from the commencement
of commercial operations (i.e. from 25.07.2010 to 30.10.2012) and continue to
make payments on the stipulated due date in the BWPA against the invoices
raised in the future by the respondent.
5.The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed both applications in
A.Nos.5315 and 5316 of 2012 dated 25.04.2013 and directed the appellant to
forthwith release all payments against the invoices for the commencement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
commercial operations as detailed in the order. Challenging the same, the
appellant preferred the above appeals.
6.It is to be seen that the respondent filed applications under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the year 2013. It is now reported before
this Court that the respondent did not initiate any arbitrary proceedings. The
question is whether the orders passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act as such are maintainable. Since the respondent had not even
sought for reference so far, the learned counsels appearing on either side has
conceded that the direction of the learned Single Judge of this Court may be set
aside. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that
the respondent may still go for arbitration and seek further remedy and for
liberty. However, the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant
objected to any liberty being given by this Court to the respondent to initiate
arbitrary proceedings on the ground of limitation. This Court is of the view that
the appeal can be allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge
of this Court leaving it open to the respondent to work out its remedy if it is
permissible in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
7.Having regard to the admitted facts, this Court is of the view that the
respondent may seek further remedy by way of arbitration proceedings in
accordance with law if it is not barred. However, it may be open to the appellant
to raise its objections in case a fresh proceeding is initiated. This order is
therefore without prejudice the right of parties to agitate their claim or defence.
8.In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order of learned Single Judge
in A.Nos.5315 and 5316 of 2012 is set aside. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (A.A.N., J.)
24.01.2023
cda
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
AND
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.,
cda
To
1.Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply
and Sewerage Board,
No.1, Pumping Station Road,
Chintadripet, Chennai – 600 002.
2.Chennai Water Desalination Ltd.,
No.30-A, South Phase, 6th Cross Street,
Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
3.The Section Officer, VR Records,
High Court, Chennai.
O.S.A.Nos.274 & 275 of 2013
24.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
