Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats PVT. LTD. vs. Government Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The applicant, Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. in Joint Venture with Rodic Consultants Pvt. Ltd., entered into a contract with the Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, for consultancy services. The contract value included service tax and Goods and Services Tax (GST). The applicant claims the respondent failed to reimburse the service tax and GST components as agreed. Following the dispute resolution clause, an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitrator awarded the applicant reimbursement for service tax and GST, directing the respondent to pay the amount after examining records. The respondent challenged this award before the Commercial Court, which partly allowed the challenge but did not disturb the arbitrator's findings on entitlement to reimbursement. The applicant then filed a fresh application under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the quantification and payment of the reimbursement amount.

Held

The Court held that the present arbitration request is not maintainable. The reasoning was based on the fact that the applicant had previously invoked arbitration proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which led to the appointment of a sole arbitrator. This arbitrator passed an award, which was subsequently challenged by the State/respondents before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court had partly allowed the challenge. The Court found that the applicant could not controvert the fact that this was a subsequent arbitration request arising out of the same contract/agreement. Therefore, entertaining a second petition on the same issue was deemed inappropriate. The Court dismissed the arbitration request as not maintainable.

Key Issues

1. Whether a second arbitration request under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable when an earlier arbitration award arising from the same contract has already been rendered and subsequently challenged before the Commercial Court. The applicant argued that the previous arbitration proceedings and the subsequent challenge before the Commercial Court did not resolve the specific dispute regarding the quantification and payment of the reimbursement amount for Service Tax and GST. They contended that the Commercial Court's order, while partly allowing the challenge, left the issue of quantification unresolved, necessitating a fresh arbitration request for this specific purpose. The respondent argued that since the applicant had already invoked arbitration proceedings, an award was passed, and the award was challenged before the Commercial Court, which partly allowed the challenge, a second arbitration request on the same issue is not maintainable. They relied on the procedural history where the matter has already gone through arbitration and court proceedings.