M/S Bijendra Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, was maintainable. The Court rejected the respondents' preliminary objection regarding the non-filing of the original agreement. The reasoning was that the applicant had clearly stated the original agreement was with the respondents, and the respondents, in their reply, admitted possession of the original and conceded that the photocopy filed by the applicant was verbatim the same. Therefore, the Court found no reason to direct the production of the original agreement and considered the objection to be without merit. The Court also noted that a dispute regarding the reimbursement of GST existed between the parties, as the applicant claimed a dispute over GST reimbursement while the respondents claimed the entire final bill was paid. Consequently, the Court found it to be a fit case for the appointment of an arbitrator. The application was disposed of with directions to refer the arbitration case to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Centre and to appoint Shri Shiv Narayan Khare as the sole independent Arbitrator.

Facts

The applicant, M/s Bijendra Singh, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute arose from an agreement for road improvement works. The applicant alleged that the respondents, Union of India and others, had not addressed their demand for arbitration, which was invoked via letters dated April 14, 2022, and March 24, 2023. The core of the dispute, as stated by the applicant, pertained to the reimbursement of GST amount. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the application was not maintainable due to the non-filing of the original agreement. However, they admitted that the original agreement was with CDA, Jabalpur and that the photocopy filed by the applicant was verbatim the same as the original.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, is maintainable despite the applicant not filing the original agreement, given that a verbatim copy was filed and the respondents admitted possession of the original? Petitioner's contention: The applicant argued that the application was maintainable as they had stated the original agreement was with the respondents, and the respondents themselves admitted possession of the original and conceded that the filed copy was verbatim. They relied on the fact that a dispute regarding GST reimbursement existed. Revenue's contention: The respondents contended that the application was not maintainable as the applicant failed to file the original copy of the agreement as required by law. They also stated that the entire amount of the final bill had been paid, implying no dispute existed.