IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA, HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, JJ.
The Principal Secretary, And Another – Appellant
Versus
Contec Syndicate Private Limited, and 5 Others – Respondent
COMCA No.15 OF 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 37, 34 , 11(6), 16(2) 16(3), 34(2), 34(ii) 34(ii)(v), 34(2) (2) and 34(2)(5) - Articles 6.7, 19 , 19.1 (a), 19.2., 19.1(b) and 19.2(a) - Arbitration BOT contract - Concession period - Resolution of the dispute that arose between the parties - Concession agreement - Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Work for construction of four high level bridges on Hyderabad-Guntur road was taken up by Roads and Buildings Department of then Government of Andhra Pradesh as a single package under the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) Scheme during year work was awarded to respondent agreement was entered into between parties.
Finding of the Court :
There is no patent illegality violation of public policy of India or contravention of terms of the contract - Award is not contrary to substantive provisions of Law, not contrary to the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 or against terms of the contract between parties - Employer could not find out any specific aspect to contend that award is contrary to fundamental policies of Indian Law, notions of justice and morality - Court shall not intervene in arbitration process except in accordance with the provisions contained in Part I of the 1996 Act - principle of least interference in arbitration proceedings recognizes general principle that function of courts in matters relating to arbitration is to support the arbitration process.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT:
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Principal Secretary to the then Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Transport, Roads and Buildings Department and the then Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Development Corporation Limited (Corporation) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (briefly, ‘the 1996 Act’ hereinafter), assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, rejecting the petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, being registered as C.O.P.No.12 of 2018.
3. Shorn of details, we may briefly narrate the facts leading to filing of the present appeal.
4. A work for construction of four high level bridges on Hyderabad-Guntur road was taken up by the Roads and Buildings Department of the then Government of Andhra Pradesh as a single package under the Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) Scheme during the year 2002. The work was awarded to respondent No.1 i.e., Contec Syndicate Private Limited (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the contractor’), following which agreement dated 26.02.2003 was entered into between the parties.
5. According to the appellants, one of the salient features of the BOT contract was a concession period of 12½ years and out of which, the contractor was permitted to collect toll tax at Government approved rates for a period of 11 years.
6. It is stated that the contractor had completed construction of all the four bridges by 12.07.2004 and it collected toll tax at the Government approved rates for the period from 01.08.2004 to 31.07.2015.
7. There was a Terms of Reference for daily collection which was appended to the bid document. As per para 6 of the Terms of Reference, detailed procedure was laid down amongst others for revision of daily fee which could be altered with the prior approval of the Government.
8. Contractor made a representation to the Government under para 6.7 of the Terms of Reference for upward revision of the toll rates. The first representation was made on 18.11.2010, which was followed by the subsequent representation on 10.12.2010.
9. A steering group was constituted which made recommendation to the Government on 18.12.2013 calling upon the contractor to furnish revised proposal for prior approval of the Government.
10. When the contractor approached the Engineer-in-Chief, he made an endorsement on 23.12.2013 to the Managing Director of the Corporation to take up further necessary action. However, the Government, after gathering inputs, declined to grant prior approval to the contractor and rejected the request vide letter dated 27.06.2015.
11. Contractor invoked arbitration clause 19.2 (a) of the agreement dated 26.02.2003 on 03.07.2015 appointing a retired Judge of this court as its Arbitrator and requesting the appellants to appoint their Arbitrator as the second Arbitrator. When this was not done, the contractor filed an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act before this court, which was registered as Arbitration Application No.95 of 2015. This court, by order dated 10.06.2016, constituted an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act for resolution of the dispute that arose between the parties in terms of the agreement dated 26.02.2003.
12. Following the aforesaid order of this court, appellants nominated a retired Judge of this court as their Arbitrator. The two Arbitrators i.e., one by the contractor and the other by the appellants viz., Justice R.Kantha Rao and Justice G.Bhavani Prasad, in turn, nominated Justice C.V.Ramulu as the third/Presiding Arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.
13. Arbitral Tribunal commenced arbitral proceedings on and from 29.08.2016. While the contractor filed its claim statement, appellants filed written arguments. As per the claim statement, the contractor claimed compensation towards revised toll fee from 18.10.2010 to 31.07.
SWISS TIMINGS LTD., v. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, COMMONWEALTH GAMES, 2010 DELHI
Judicial interference in awards passed by Arbitral Tribunals should be minimal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope for interference with arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the discretion of the Arbitrator in a....
The court affirmed that judicial intervention in arbitral awards is limited to grounds of public policy or patent illegality, emphasizing respect for the Arbitrator's findings.
Objection to arbitral tribunal constitution waived if not raised under Section 16 before statement of defence; 2015 Amendment's disqualification provisions inapplicable to pre-commencement proceeding....
The court clarified the applicability of section 12(5) of the Act of 1996 and emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of arbitration matters.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.