2000 Supreme(Kar) 231
Karnataka High Court
MYSORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 03-24-00
CIV.MISC.PETN. : 16 of 2000
KISHORE MALLYA, S.N.MURTHY, Sri Somashekar
An agreement will be considered as an arbitration agreement if it provides for reference of disputes to a private forum, requires an impartial and judicial enquiry, and makes the decision final and binding on both parties.
Headnote:
arbitration agreement - construction of Kadra Power House - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 (6) - Clause 67, Clause 29 - The court analyzed the clauses in the agreement to determine if they constituted an arbitration agreement. The court found that the clauses did not meet the requirements of an arbitration agreement as they did not provide for a private forum for dispute resolution, did not require an impartial and judicial enquiry, and did not make the decision final and binding on both parties. Therefore, the petition under Section 11 of the Act was rejected as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd for the construction of Kadra Power House. Disputes arose between the parties regarding certain claims made by the petitioner, which were not admitted by KPC. The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the clauses in the agreement did not constitute an arbitration agreement as they did not meet the requirements of an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the petition under Section 11 of the Act was rejected as not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the clauses in the agreement constituted an arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an agreement to be considered as an arbitration agreement, it must provide for or contemplate reference of disputes to a private forum for decision, require an impartial and judicial enquiry, and make the decision final and binding on both parties. The clauses in the agreement did not meet these requirements.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected as not maintainable.
( 1 ) PETITIONER entered into an agreement dated 21. 11. 1988 with the karnataka Power Corporation Ltd [first respondent, 'kpc' for short] under which the work of "construction of Kadra Power House and appurtenant works" was entrusted by KPC to the petitioner.
( 2 ) CLAUSE 67 of the Conditions of Contract forming part of the said agreement related to 'settlement of disputes'. The said clause is extracted below: settlement OF DISPUTES"67) If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever shall arise between the Engineer and the Contractor in connection with, or arising out of the contract, or the execution of works, whether during the progress of the works or after their completion and whether before or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first place, be referred to and settled by the Engineer who shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of being requested by the Contractor to do so, give written notice of his decision of the Contractor. Subject to other form of settlement hereafter provided, such decision in respect of every dispute or difference so referred shall be final and binding upon the Contractor. The said decision shall forthwith be given effect to, and the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the works with all due diligence. In case the decision of the Engineer is not acceptable to the contractor, he may approach the law Courts at Bangalore for settlement ot dispute after giving due written notice in this regard to the engineer within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the written notice of the decision of the Engineer. If the Engineer has given written notice of his decision to the Contractor and no written notice to approach the law Courts has been communicated to him by the Contractor within a period of ninety days from receipt of such notice, the said decision shall be final and binding upon the contractor. If the Engineer shall fail to give notice ot his decision within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the contractor's request in writing for settlement of any dispute or difference as aforesaid, the Contractor may within ninety days after the expiration of the first named period of ninety days approach the law Courts at Bangalore, giving due notice to the engineer. Whether the claim is referred to the Engineer or to the law Courts, as the case may be, the Contractor shall proceed to execute and complete the works with all due diligence pending settlement of the said dispute or differences. The reference of any dispute or difference to the Engineer or law Courts may proceed notwithstanding that the works shall then be or be alleged to be complete, provided always that the obligations of the engineer and the Contractor shall not be altered by reason of the said dispute or difference being referred to the Engineer or law Courts during the progress of the works. "
( 3 ) DURING the execution of the said work, the parties agreed upon certain revision in rates and other revised terms and reduced them into writing in the form of a Supplementary Agreement. According to the petitioner, the said supplementary agreement was signed on 13. 6. 1995, whereas, according to respondents, the supplementary agreement was signed on 7. 8. 1995. Clause 29 of the Conditions of contract, forming part of the said supplementary agreement deals with settlement of disputes. The said clause is extracted below: settlement OF DISPUTES-TIME LIMIT FOR DECISION clause-29 (A) If any dispute or difference of any kind whatsoever were to arise between the executive Engineer/. superintending Engineer and the Contractor regarding the following matter namelv. (i) The meaning of the specifications designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned; (ii) The quality of workmanship or material used on the work and (iii) Any other questions, claim right, matter, thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, dra