Rajasthan High Court
M/S Terracis Technologies Ltd vs Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 130/2021
M/s Terracis Technologies Ltd., (Formally Known As M/s. IL&FS
Technologies Limited) Having Its Registered Office At B/21 Silver
Apartment, Shanker Ghanekar Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-
400028 And Corporate Office At 3Rd Floor, OCUS Technopolis
Tower-A Sector 54 Golf Course Road, Gurugram, Haryana-
122001 Through Senior Manager Sh. Kamlesh Sharma S/o Sh.
Jagdish Narayan Sharma, R/o E-127 A, Katariya Colony,
Ramnagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur 302019
----Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue For Rajasthan, Gokhale Lane Opp. Collectorate
Office, Basant Vihar, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Raj.
305001 Through Its Registrar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Dangi
Mr. Hitesh Jatawat
Mr. James Bedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
RESERVED ON :: 13/07/2022
PRONOUNCED ON :: 27/07/2022
1. The applicant has filed this arbitration application under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking
appointment of an independent sole arbitrator.
2. It is contended in the arbitration application that the
respondent/non-applicant issued an E-Bid for establishment of
Modern Record Rooms on 29.07.2015. The bid submitted by the
applicant Company was found responsive and therefore, a letter of
(2 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2021]
acceptance was issued in favour of the applicant on 01.10.2015. A
contract was executed between the applicant and the non-
applicant on 04.11.2015. A dispute with regard to taxes arose
between the parties, which was referred to the Chairman, Board of
Revenue. The Chairman, Board of Revenue passed an award on
07.09.2017 and rejected the claim of the applicant. The objections
preferred by the applicant were rejected by the learned District
Judge (Commercial Division), Ajmer on 16.04.2019. The Division
Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 20.02.2020 quashed
and set aside the order dated 16.04.2019 and the award dated
07.09.2017 and held that the Chairman, Board of Revenue could
not have acted as a sole arbitrator.
3. It is contended in the arbitration application by the applicant
that thereafter a meeting took place under the auspices of the
Principal Secretary (Revenue) and certain decisions were taken.
However, the Board issued fresh work order and did not execute
the amended contract. It is pleaded in the application that on
20.07.2021, the applicant served a notice on the Board for
appointment of a sole arbitrator, however, even after a lapse of 30
days, the non-applicant failed to act upon the said notice.
4. The non-applicant has raised preliminary objections with
regard to the claim being barred by limitation. It is also contended
that the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of the
Chairman, Board of Revenue and now a claim cannot be raised
again.
5. I have considered the contentions and perused the material
on record.
(3 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2021]
6. The arbitration clause reads as under:
"18. Resolution of Disputes:
* Any and all disputes or differences between the
Parties arising out of or in connection with this Contract
or its performance shall, so far as it is possible, be
settled amicably through direct informal negotiation
between the Parties.
* If after 30 (thirty) days of consultation or before,
the department and the successful Bidder have failed to
reach an amicable settlement, on any or all disputes or
differences arising out of or in connection with this
Contract or its performance, it shall be referred to The
Chairman, Revenue Board, Rajasthan, Ajmer, who shall
be the sole arbitrator."
7. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause and therefore, the
dispute was referred to arbitration and the award was passed by
the Chairman, Board of Revenue. The said award was quashed by
the Division Bench of this Court holding that the Chairman, Board
of Revenue could not have acted as an arbitrator in view of the
judgment of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Versus HSCC
(India) Ltd.: AIR 2020 SC 59. Since the claim raised before the
earlier arbitrator was rejected and this Court had come to the
conclusion that Arbitral Tribunal i.e. Chairman, Board of Revenue
was not competent to adjudicate, the said claim cannot be said to
be deadwood. Even otherwise, it is now a settled principle of law
that the dispute with regard to the limitation can be raised before
an arbitrator.
8. It is evident that there is an arbitration clause, notice was
given for appointment of an arbitrator and within 30 days, an
arbitrator was not appointed, hence, this Court deems it proper to
invoke the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act of
(4 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2021]
1996. The arbitration application deserves to be and is accordingly
allowed.
9. This Court appoints Mr. Justice G.R. Moolchandani (Retired),
Plot No.213, Taru Chhaya Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, as the sole
arbitrator to decide the dispute.
10. The appointment of the sole arbitrator is subject to the
declarations being made under Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to the independence and
impartiality, and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete
the arbitration within prescribed period.
11. The arbitrator shall be entitled to lay down fees as provided
under Manual of Procedure for Alternative Disputes Resolution,
2009 as amended from time to time.
12. Registry is directed to intimate Mr. Justice G.R. Moolchandani
(Retired) and obtain his formal consent.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
