Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 14: Chief Justice Acting Tashi Rabstan has dismissed the petition for appointment of Arbitrator filed by M/s R K Verma in Arbitration Petition Titled M/s R K Verma Versus Sterlite Technologies Ltd. & Another
Anil K Kher, Senior Advocate with Advocates Inder Jeet Gupta and Yatin Mahajan and Advocate Dheeraj Nanda appeared on behalf of the respondents while as Advocate G S Thakur appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
As per Arbitration Petition, Sterlite Technologies Limited was awarded contract of laying, installation and commissioning of 9500 kms of Optical Fiber Cables (OFC). Thereafter, vide Fiber Roll Out and Managed Services Agreement dated 28.03.2015, respondent appointed M/s Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd as the Service Provider.
M/s Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. further appointed M/s R K Verma as its sub-contractor for executing the work. Now the claim of the petitioner-M/s R K Verma is that it completed the entire allotted work, but was paid only Rs 58,31,475 and the balance amount of work done by the petitioner is still outstanding and has not been paid to the petitioner.
It was contended that in accordance with the Two Letters of Intent dated 28.01.2016 and the settlement arrived at in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 19.05.2017 between the petitioner and respondents, the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs 2,63,15,000 from the respondents, however, he has been paid only an amount of Rs 58,31,475.
Further, it was contended that the two Letters of Intent dated 28.01.2016 contained an arbitration clause that all the disputes arising out of or in relation to the Letters of Intent are preferable to arbitration. Accordingly, the petitioner while invoking the arbitration clause sent legal notice dated 07.05.2019 to the respondents but they did not pay any heed to the legal notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator.
However, the same came to be dismissed on 24.09.2021 on the ground that the petitioner did not follow the mandatory procedure of naming an arbitrator in terms of Letters of Intent dated 28.01.2016.
It was contended that thereafter the petitioner again sent a legal notice to the respondents thereby naming an arbitrator and requested respondents to now appoint 2nd arbitrator and then 1st and 2nd arbitrators were to appoint 3rd arbitrator in terms of Letters of Intent dated 28.01.2016.
However, the respondents did not respond to the legal notice. Hence, the present petition for appointment of an arbitrator. However, the respondents, in their objections, submitted that neither there was any amount payable to the petitioner nor there is any dispute between them which is required to be adjudicated upon. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner has furnished an undertaking in favour of respondent admitting that it has no claim left against respondent.
After hearing both the sides, High Court dismissed the Arbitration Petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
