Karnataka High Court: SR Krishna Kumar, J., disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner-company to avail such remedies as available in law.
The instant petition was filed by the petitioner company under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 wherein it seeks resolution of disputes with the respondents- Railways by referring the same to a sole arbitrator in terms of clause 56 of the Agreement.
Counsel for petitioner Mr Sampath Bapat submitted that the dispute between the parties is arbitrable in terms of clause-56 of the Agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondents.
Counsel for respondents Mr Abhinay Y. T. submitted that the statement of objections clearly mentions that the claim of the petitioner falls under the category ‘excepted matters’ as per clause-45 (b) of the Agreement and consequently, the same are not arbitrable and cannot be referred to resolution by way of appointing a sole arbitrator.
The Court relied on judgment Harsha Constructions v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 246 observed that excepted/excluded matters cannot be referred to resolution by way of arbitration, since the matter in the instant case is a non-arbitrable dispute which is not capable of being referred to arbitration.
The Court held “the petition deserves to be disposed off reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner-company to avail such remedies as available in law including filing a civil suit for enforcement of its claim in accordance with law.”
[Global Agency v. Union of India, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 7 of 2018, decided in 16-12-2020]
