SVARYU ENERGY LIMITED Vs. BHRAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Sec. 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996.

(2.) It is not disputed that earlier a sole arbitrator was appointed and sole arbitrator passed an award on 23/5/2018 partly in favour of the petitioner and partly in favour of the respondent. In the meantime, in October, 2020 there was a restructuring in the division of the respondent and a separate division was created in Bangalore to deal with the Solar business. The award passed by the sole arbitrator was challenged by the petitioner as well as the respondent before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in AS Nos.176 and 180/2018. The City Civil Court, Bengaluru allowed both the arbitral suits by way of two separate judgments, both dtd. 20/12/2021 while setting aside the arbitral award dtd. 23/5/2018.

(3.) Following the award being set aside at the hands of the City Civil Court, the petitioner once again issued notice invoking Clause 23 of the general terms and conditions of the purchase orders. The notice was issued on 31/3/2022 suggesting the names of four arbitrators and calling upon the respondents to choose any one of the arbitrators suggested by the petitioners or as an alternative if the names were not acceptable then the respondent was required to sent a panel of three names so that the petitioner could choose one amongst the panel of the arbitrators. Nevertheless since the respondent failed to respond to the notice issued by the petitioner within the statutory period of 30 days, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking Sec. 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 for appointment of a sole arbitrator.