AKR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. KRANTHI CONSTRUCTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1996'), AKR Constructions Limited, Hyderabad, seeks appointment of a sole Arbitrator for resolution of its claim for a sum of Rs.7.34 crores raised against Kranthi Constructions, Hyderabad, a partnership firm, and Sew Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, the respondents herein.

(2.) As per the affidavit filed by the Managing Director of the applicant company, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed on 13.11.2008 by and between the applicant company and the respondents, to form a consortium for procuring the work order relating to Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Pranahitha Chavella Sujala Srawanthi Package No.26. The consortium emerged the successful bidder for the work valued at Rs.1,042.20 crores. A fresh MoU was executed by the members of the consortium on 21.02.2009 superseding the earlier MoU dated 13.11.2008.

(3.) Disputes having arisen in relation to this MoU, the applicant company addressed notice dated 21.02.2018 to the first respondent firm marking a copy thereof to the second respondent company. Thereby, the applicant company called upon them to convene a meeting so as to share the amount received so far, as per the revised supplemental MoU, within fifteen days, failing which the applicant company stated that it would be constrained to take measures to approach for arbitration as well as other remedies to receive its eligible share of the amounts. According to the applicant company, despite receiving the aforestated notice, neither of the respondents chose to reply. Thereafter, the applicant company addressed notice dated 06.11.2018 to the first respondent firm referring to its earlier letter dated 21.02.2018 and stating that as neither of the addressees had responded and there was no possibility of an amicable settlement, it was invoking Clause 6 of the supplemental MoU dated 21.02.2009 and called upon the addressees to give their concurrence to appoint one of the three retired District Judges chosen by it as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes. Again, a copy of this letter was marked to the second respondent company. No response having been received even to this communication, the applicant company is before this Court.