1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.254/2017

BETWEEN:

M V Subba Reddy,

Son of M Sanjeev Reddy,

Aged about 82 years,

No.193, 15^th Cross, II Phase, II Stage,

Mahalaxmipuram,

Bengaluru-560086.

... Petitioner

(By Sri. V.P.Kulkarni, Advocate)

AND:

The Executive Director,

BHEL Electronics Division,

PB No.2606, Mysore Road,

Bengaluru-560026.

&Respondent

(By Sri.T.N.Vishwanatha, Advocate)

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

11(6)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying

to appoint an independent arbitrator to adjudicate upon

the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and

the respondent in the execution of the work order bearing

No.W.O.No.C/C/00/45/053 dated 23.11.2000 as detailed

by

the

petitioner

in

his

notice

dated

11.07.2014

(Annexure-F) in the interest of justice and equity.

2

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming on for

Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition

seeking for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate

upon the disputes that have arisen between the

petitioner and the respondent in execution of the work

order

bearing

No.W.O.No.C/C/00/045/053

dated

23.11.2000.

2.

The facts as made out in the petition are

that petitioner was awarded work under the work

order dated 23.11.2000 for construction of building for

space grade solar panel project and BHEL Electronics

Division, Electronic City, Bangalore. It is the assertion

of the petitioner that the work was completed on

28.03.2003 as per the certificate issued by the

respondent.

3

3.

Petitioner submits that General Conditions

of Contract would be applicable to all transactions

between the petitioner and the respondent and

Clause-58 of the said General Conditions of Contract

provides for arbitration.

4.

It is further submitted that in light of the

disputes that have arisen relating to payments to be

made to the petitioner, demand for appointment of

arbitrator has been made as per the request letters

dated 29.06.2012 and 11.06.2013 and in light of the

untenable reply of the respondent dated 11.07.2013

and after having made subsequent demands which

were in vain the petitioner finally got issued a legal

notice invoking the arbitration clause on 11.07.2014.

5.

It is submitted that in light of absence of

any response to the said legal notice, present petition

4

has been filed seeking for appointment of an

arbitrator.

6.

After the matter was heard on various

occasions

wherein

the

respondent

had

raised

contentions specifically pointing out that the present

petition was instituted in the year 2017 is barred by

time as the demand even as per the say of the

petitioner for appointment of arbitrator was made on

24.08.2004.

7.

An application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act has been filed by way of IA No.1/2021

seeking for condonation of delay of 385 days in filing

the present petition.

8.

Learned counsel for the respondent has

filed the objections to the main petition and has

contended

that

the

dispute

itself

cannot

be

entertained as the petitioner has sought to raise

5

dispute after a period of 16 years and hence, legal

redressal for a stale claim ought not to be permitted.

9.

It is further submitted that even as per the

completion certificate issued by the respondent at

Annexure-B on 28.03.2003 work has been completed

and

any

dispute

ought

to

have

been

raised

immediately thereafter and the respondent having

kept quiet by merely relying on the correspondences

that have been addressed is legally untenable while it

ought to be noted that the l