KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
April 07,2014
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
Deepak Cables (India) Ltd
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOVERNOR -GENERAL V. SIMLA BANKING AND INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. [REFERRED TO]CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS REWA VS. RATAN SINGH HANS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. TIPPER CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANIBAI GUPTA VS. COLLECTOR JABALPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. DAMODAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
K K MODI VS. K N MODI [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHUSHAN BANSAL VS. U R SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD [REFERRED TO]
M K SHAH ENGINEERS AND COMPANYNTRACTORS CHABALDAS AND SONS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
WELLINGTON ASSOCIATES LIMITED VS. KIRIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR STATE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. ENCON BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH CHANDER VS. RAMESH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE VS. DINA NATH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BHAGYADHAR DASH [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL JAGAN NATH VS. PUNJAB STATE [REFERRED TO]
DEWAN CHAND VS. STATE OF J&K [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BABANRAO RAJARAM PUND VS. SAMARTH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-24] [REFERRED TO]CHIEF ENGINEER (MADHYA GANGA) AND OTHERS VS. JAIN CONSTRUCTION CO. ENGINEERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
UJAS ASSOCIATES VS. KJS CEMENT (INDIA) LIMITED [LAWS(MPH)-2022-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
BALMAT & OTHERS VS. NITIN LALCHANDANI & ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-6-102] [REFERRED TO]
JAIN BOOK MANUFACTURERS VS. TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-513] [REFERRED TO]
SMS AAMW TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2016-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. B.M.S. ASSOCIATES [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
SINGHAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM B NARAIN GATE, BHARATPUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR RAJASTHAN STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, PANT KRISHI BHAWAN, JANPATH, JAIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-124] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI BASRAM JAT, S/O SHRI AGAMA JAT, AGE 44 YEARS CASTE JAT, R/O VILLAGE MAVESIYA, POST RAMSAR, NASIRABAD, DISTRICT AJMER VS. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, REG. OFF. AT ONE INDIABULLS CENTRE, TOWER 1, 15TH AND 16TH FLOOR, JUPITER MILL COMPOUND, 841, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTORE ROAD, MUMBAI [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. CHOUDHARY RAJNI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-816] [REFERRED]
KHURSHEED AHMAD LONE VS. DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTRY [LAWS(J&K)-2024-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
NIKE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MY STORE PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
IPROSUGAR ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-117] [REFERRED TO]
JAY BHAGWATI CONSTRUCTION CO VS. HAWARE ENGINEERS & BUILDERS PVT LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2018-10-155] [REFERRED TO]
AMR INDIA LTD VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
M/S KULDIP SINGH SETHI & GAGAN GOYAL VS. ECOLE GLOBALE INTERNATIONAL GIRLS SCHOOL [LAWS(UTN)-2019-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
B.R. GANESH AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER, THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-423] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD VS. BRIGADIER PETER ANTHONY LOPES [LAWS(KAR)-2019-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
(2.)The controversy involved in these appeals, preferred by special leave, being similar, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition 29011 of 2013.
(3.)The appellant No. 1 is a company wholly owned by the Government of Karnataka and, being a State transmission utility, is a deemed licencee in the State. It invited tenders for establishing 2x8 MVA, 66/11 Sub-stations at Tavarekere in Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, which included the supply materials, erection and civil works on partial turnkey basis. The respondent-company participated in the bid and it was successful in the tender and, accordingly, a letter of intent was sent to it. After taking recourse to certain procedural aspects, a contract was entered into between the appellant- company and the respondent. During the performance of the contract, the respondent raised a claim before the engineer as per clause 48 of the general conditions of the contract and called upon the engineer to settle certain disputes arising in connection with the contract. As the concerned engineer did not do anything within the prescribed period of thirty days as provided under clause 48.2, the respondent filed CMP No. 62 of 2011 under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act") before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for appointment of an arbitrator.
(2.)The controversy involved in these appeals, preferred by special leave, being similar, they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition 29011 of 2013.
(3.)The appellant No. 1 is a company wholly owned by the Government of Karnataka and, being a State transmission utility, is a deemed licencee in the State. It invited tenders for establishing 2x8 MVA, 66/11 Sub-stations at Tavarekere in Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District, which included the supply materials, erection and civil works on partial turnkey basis. The respondent-company participated in the bid and it was successful in the tender and, accordingly, a letter of intent was sent to it. After taking recourse to certain procedural aspects, a contract was entered into between the appellant- company and the respondent. During the performance of the contract, the respondent raised a claim before the engineer as per clause 48 of the general conditions of the contract and called upon the engineer to settle certain disputes arising in connection with the contract. As the concerned engineer did not do anything within the prescribed period of thirty days as provided under clause 48.2, the respondent filed CMP No. 62 of 2011 under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act") before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore for appointment of an arbitrator.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.