M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel with Mr. Shashank Verma, counsel for the non-applicant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the application briefly stated are that the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board and the non-applicant had entered into an agreement on 23-9-1993. Clause 34 of the agreement provides that any dispute or differences arising out of the agreement shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute between the parties had arisen. By notice dated 17-7-2001, the applicant terminated the contract of the non-applicant. Thereafter, the applicant sent a notice on 20-12-2001 to the non-applicant by which it appointed an Arbitrator. The applicant thereafter filed an application for appointment of an Arbitrator before the District Court on 17-11-2003 which was returned to it to be filed before the competent forum on 10-12-2004 as the amount in dispute was above Rs. 10 Lakhs. The applicant thereupon has filed this application before this Court on 10-1-2005 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties had entered into an agreement which contains an arbitration clause and the present applicant namely M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd., is successor of M.P. State Electricity Board, therefore, it has locus to maintain the application. It is further submitted that the issue whether the claim made by the applicant is barred by limitation cannot be decided without recording the evidence, therefore, the same be referred for decision to the Arbitrator. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, 2005 8 SCC 618, Schlumberger Asia Services Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, 2013 7 SCC 562, Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust and another, 2014 5 SCC 68 and Swiss Timing Limited vs. Commonwealth Games 2010 Organising Committee, 2014 6 SCC 677.