Slipco Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Anr

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the

petitioner inter alia seeking the following prayer:

 “A. Appoint the Local Commissioner to:

i. take Inventory of the Petitioner’s plant & Equipment at project site and keep them same in safe custody till they are released to the Petition, ii.

Take measurement of the work done by the Petitioner in presence of the representative of both the parties.

B. pass a status quo order that no Construction to be carried out at the project site till completion of above activity as mentioned in point (a) and

submission of the Report by the Local Commissioner.

C. Give directions for safe custody of the Petitioner’s Plants and equipments till final disposal of the matter; and;

D. Or in the alternative direct the Respondent to permit the Petitioner to withdraw and remove its plant and equipments.

E. That the Commissioner of Industries (M.S.M.E.) Delhi be advised to Appoint an Arbitrator/Agency within 90 days.â€​

It is the case of the petitioner that the Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited (TSGENCO) is setting up a power project at

Ramanujavaram, Manuguru, District Khammam, TELANGANA and had awarded an EPC contract to the respondent no.1 to set up 4 X 270 MW

Thermal Power Station. The respondent no.1 in turn had sub-contracted the work of construction of one chimney for unit 1 and 2 to the petitioner.

On the allegations that the petitioner had failed to execute the works under the contract, TSGENCO deleted the work of Chimney from the scope

of work of the respondent no. 1, who in turn terminated the contract of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.03.2018. This letter was received by the

petitioner only on 22.03.2018 through an e-mail.

The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition primarily seeking taking of inventory of the petitioner’s plant and equipment at the project site

as also the measurements of the work already done by the petitioner on the site. This petition was filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2018.

From the reply filed by TSGENCO to the application seeking their impleadment in the present petition, it is revealed that the respondent no.1, after

terminating the contract had addressed a letter dated 09.4.2018 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to depute its authorized personnel for inter

alia preparing material reconciliation statement for the material issued by the respondent and return the excess/unused material to the respondent as

also to preserve and take care of the petitioner’s plant and machinery.

The petitioner, however, by an e-mail dated 10.04.2018 called upon the respondent to get the work measured in the presence of a person appointed

by the Court.

Counsel for TSGENCO submits that as TSGENCO could not have waited any further, it got the work measured alongwith respondent no.1 and the

said measurement reports will be supplied to the petitioner. He further submits that since that date, the work has been allocated to a new contractor

who has carried out substantial work under the said contract. He submits that at this stage, therefore, to have the work measured afresh would cause

further confusion inasmuch as it would be difficult to decipher the work which has been carried out by the petitioner and that which has been carried

out by the new contractor. He submits that even otherwise, this exercise would cause further delay in the completion of work and the TSGENCO

cannot be made to suffer for the inter se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.1.

Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that this Court would lack territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. However, for the order

proposed to be passed, this objection of the respondent is left open.

I have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties.

The petitioner had filed this petition without impleading TSGENCO, though it was always aware that the site is under the possession and control of

TSGENCO and no measurement of the work can be carried out in its absence and without its permission. It is only after realising at a later stage, that

TSGENCO is a proper and necessary party in these proceedings that an application seeking their impleadment has been filed by the petitioner.

Immediately, on filing of the petition, the petitioner had been called upon by the respondent no.1 to join in on the joint measurement of the work

done as also for making of the inventory of the plant and machinery. Incase, the petitioner had any apprehension in this regard, it could have

approached the Court immediately with a request to appoint an independent observer in carrying out of such measurement. However, it chose not to

do so and in fact it was TSGENCO who in its reply dated 13.9.2018 disclosed the letter dated 09.4.2018 addressed by respondent no.1 to the

petitioner.

I further find merit in the submission of the counsel for TSGENCO that the work having already been awarded to a new contractor and such new

contractor having carried out substantial work after the award of such work, it would be impossible for the Local Commissioner to now decipher the

work which has been done by the petitioner and which has been done by the new contractor. The exercise of measurement of work at this stage

would, therefore, be a futile exercise.

As far as the equipment of the petitioner at the site is concerned, even the letter dated 09.4.2018 suggests that certain equipment belonging to the

petitioner was lying at the site. 14. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner who shall visit the site in the presence of a

representative of the petitioner as also the respondents including TSGENCO. The petitioner shall identify the equipment that it claims to be belonging

to the petitioner. If there is no dispute regarding the same, the respondent shall allow the petitioner to remove such equipment from the site. In case

there is a dispute regarding the equipment, the said dispute will be duly notified to and recorded by the Local Commissioner and shall await the result

of arbitration proceedings.

I appoint Mr.Suwinder Singh Chadha, Advocate, Mobile- 9810340129as the Local Commissioner for visiting the site of TSGENCO at Bhadradri

Thermal Power Station, Ramanujavaram, Manuguru, BhadradriKothagudem District, Telangana, to carry out the above inspection.

The Local Commissioner shall give a notice of such inspection to the counsels appearing for the respective parties.

The fee of the Local Commissioner shall be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also bear the expenses of his travel

and other incidental expenses.

Counsel for the respondents assures the Court that the respondents shall give complete assistance to the Local Commissioner in carrying out the

inspection. However, it is made clear that incase of any problem, the Local Commissioner shall also be free to seek police assistance. The Local

Commissioner, on completion of investigation, shall give a copy of the report to all the parties and also file the same in this Court.

The petition is disposed of with the above directions.