w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, R.A. Puram, rep. by its Superintending Engineer v/s M/s. VDB Projects (P) Ltd. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2007PLC036644

Company & Directors' Information:- VDB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200KA2005PTC036400

Company & Directors' Information:- T G R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2012PTC062702

Company & Directors' Information:- S G PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65999WB1990PLC049684

Company & Directors' Information:- B C C PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC112102

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2008PLC008641

Company & Directors' Information:- W AND W PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910DL1989PTC036754

Company & Directors' Information:- E M C PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29248WB1964PTC026261

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72400DL2011PTC220047

Company & Directors' Information:- M A PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2005PTC135093

Company & Directors' Information:- S. V. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100AP1998PTC029024

Company & Directors' Information:- M V PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202KA2008PTC045272

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2015PTC096787

Company & Directors' Information:- U W T PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2004PLC043198

Company & Directors' Information:- J J PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U24231WB1986PTC040246

Company & Directors' Information:- T & I PROJECTS LTD [Active] CIN = L29130WB1984PLC038232

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2013PTC189971

Company & Directors' Information:- C M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130580

Company & Directors' Information:- N G PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2003PLC042152

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL1996PTC079487

Company & Directors' Information:- V R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400AP2007PTC054901

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200TG1982PTC003711

Company & Directors' Information:- S H PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74996DL2006PTC149971

Company & Directors' Information:- S R PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45207WB1981PTC033286

Company & Directors' Information:- L E PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45303WB2005PTC102555

Company & Directors' Information:- M. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC131902

Company & Directors' Information:- J V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC069037

Company & Directors' Information:- B N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2009PTC058067

Company & Directors' Information:- J P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC165990

Company & Directors' Information:- R K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC043660

Company & Directors' Information:- A B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC149404

Company & Directors' Information:- A K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG1996PTC023179

Company & Directors' Information:- S N M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2010PTC040243

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND H PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ2013PTC074010

Company & Directors' Information:- N S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2007PTC117882

Company & Directors' Information:- H S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208DL2006PTC153706

Company & Directors' Information:- N M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29219DL2009PTC186728

Company & Directors' Information:- K. V. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102WB2012PTC188439

Company & Directors' Information:- B S C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2011PTC227768

Company & Directors' Information:- J K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203GJ2001PTC039576

Company & Directors' Information:- F C C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29248UP1982PTC005786

Company & Directors' Information:- S N PROJECTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC021040

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29100DL2010PTC209136

Company & Directors' Information:- C & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC209136

Company & Directors' Information:- K C PROJECT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101DL1997PTC088558

Company & Directors' Information:- C B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB1997PTC085237

Company & Directors' Information:- G G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1998PTC091501

Company & Directors' Information:- V M G PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164117

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC141970

Company & Directors' Information:- M. L. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151513

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. N. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2009PTC196755

Company & Directors' Information:- G S P PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201WB1992PTC057116

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102TG2004PTC042622

Company & Directors' Information:- P A PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208WB1997PTC083907

Company & Directors' Information:- A I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203WB2000PTC091229

Company & Directors' Information:- P N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202DL2016PTC289494

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC139731

Company & Directors' Information:- K K PROJECTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70200WB1995PTC073058

Company & Directors' Information:- S L PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400AN2009PTC000109

Company & Directors' Information:- PROJECTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1951PTC019759

Company & Directors' Information:- K P PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1996PTC077397

Company & Directors' Information:- C R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400PB2009PTC032572

Company & Directors' Information:- N P R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2012PTC086360

Company & Directors' Information:- V K R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC046370

Company & Directors' Information:- I N C PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109WB2005PTC101620

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC136510

Company & Directors' Information:- D J PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15201DL2005PTC134979

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KA2008PTC045199

Company & Directors' Information:- N E PROJECTS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U16009AS1999PLC005873

Company & Directors' Information:- D R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109612

Company & Directors' Information:- L N PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2004PTC043064

Company & Directors' Information:- H B PROJECTS PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201WB1993PTC058846

Company & Directors' Information:- P. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U70109WB2011PTC170655

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2011PTC164997

Company & Directors' Information:- S P PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PTC203910

Company & Directors' Information:- C N R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2007PTC041355

Company & Directors' Information:- A J PROJECTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2006PTC164622

Company & Directors' Information:- J M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MP2007PTC019336

Company & Directors' Information:- L S S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC059508

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1995PTC069527

Company & Directors' Information:- Z & I PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45309TN2007PTC064972

Company & Directors' Information:- K D PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC209307

Company & Directors' Information:- B. G. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2012PTC231270

Company & Directors' Information:- P S R PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2015PTC101191

Company & Directors' Information:- E & E PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2015PTC075033

Company & Directors' Information:- B B R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC045165

Company & Directors' Information:- M V R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2005PTC045166

Company & Directors' Information:- L V S PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200TG2010PTC068286

Company & Directors' Information:- K L PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104DL2003PTC119655

Company & Directors' Information:- 3 G PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC276736

Company & Directors' Information:- I S R PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2005PTC138210

Company & Directors' Information:- L V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC272838

Company & Directors' Information:- ENGINEER & ENGINEER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC293097

Company & Directors' Information:- M K PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2002PTC117787

Company & Directors' Information:- C S ENGINEER PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122355

Company & Directors' Information:- B V M PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC131352

Company & Directors' Information:- K. J. S. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC152898

Company & Directors' Information:- E PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2015PTC057142

Company & Directors' Information:- H V PROJECTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202HR1997PTC033617

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109KA2005PTC037578

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND T PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2009PTC057480

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND B PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2007PTC051077

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200DL2007PTC161559

    O.P. No. 282 of 2020

    Decided On, 20 August 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

    For the Petitioner: Vijay Narayan, Advocate General assisted by Sricharan Rangarajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, P. Subba Reddy, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 14 and Section 15 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to terminate the mandate of the arbitral tribunal and reconstitute the arbitral tribunal by appointing a Retired High Court Judge as a sole arbitrator. )

This Original Petition has been filed seeking to terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator who entered a reference in dispute emanated from the agreement dated 11/2005-2006 consequent to the letter of acceptance issued by the 1st Respondent.

2. The petitioner has entered into an agreement of contract dated 29.07.2015 with the 1st respondent for upgrading Virudhachalam/ Parangipettai State Highways No.SH 70 for a contract price of Rs.165,41,09,975/-. The date of commencement of contract period is 33 months. On 23.7.2018 notice of termination was issued by the petitioner upon recommendations from the authority engineer on 11.6.2018. Thereafter, the dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner has invoked the bank guarantee, as against which a suit was filed by the 1st Respondent before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.7525 of 2018. Thereafter, Application under Section 8 of the Act was also filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter has been referred to the Arbitration. Subsequently, three member Arbitrators were appointed.

3. The first hearing of the arbitration was held on 14.02.2019, wherein the fees and other expenses were fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal had fixed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per sitting per Arbitrator for internal meetings and site visits if any and the above fee is restricted to the claim and it reserves the right for further counter claims, if any. The Arbitral Tribunal has also fixed reading charges of Rs.2 lakhs for each Arbitrator. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.1 lakh was fixed as incidental charges other than the meeting charges. Besides extra charges for days other than hearing/meeting fees subject to a maximum period of two days per occasion, a sum of Rs.20,000/- per day per arbitrator was fixed. That apart the charges for lodging, boarding and travel by Air as per actual on submission of supporting vouchers and other expenses also fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

4. It is an undisputed fact that about 32 hearings were conducted by the learned Arbitrators. Similarly, it is also undisputed that originally, the petitioner has filed its reply statement along with counter claim to the tune of Rs.1,16,89,716/-. Thereafter, they have amended and reserved their right to claim. Later stage, they have filed the counter claim and amended the claim for a sum of Rs.56,42,79,789/-. At this stage, the trouble started. It is also relevant to note that per day, two settings were conducted and sometimes, the learned Arbitrators have conducted one session in the morning and other session in afternoon. Some of the sittings conducted in post lunch at 02.30 p.m. and thereafter, at 05.30 p.m. sittings conducted for another hearing. It is to be noted that for each hearings, separate fees directed to be paid by the parties. The minutes of the first and preliminary meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 14.02.2019 indicates that there was direction to parties to pay the fees as aforesaid. The very nature of the minutes recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal indicates that fees is not fixed on arriving consensus between the parties. In fact, the Arbitral Tribunal directed the parties to pay the fees by both parties. Be that as it may. Subsequent hearings, particularly, 31st and 32nd hearings, the Arbitral Tribunal has recorded the minutes as follows:-

1. “At the outset, the Tribunal brought to the notice of both the parties that substantial amounts against fees ad expenses of the Arbitrators have not been paid by them. The claimant was asked, in case the respondent fails to make payment for fees for claims, whether the claimant would make the payment on behalf of the respondent, which would be granted to him in the award. The claimant assured the Tribunal that he would be making the payment for claims on behalf of the respondent, if such contingency arises however in such event he would not make any payment either of his ow share or on behalf of the respondent for fees of counter claims.

2. It was clarified by the Tribunal to the respondent that unless the fees for counter claims have been paid, the Tribunal would not adjudicate the entire claims. It was also made clear that in case the Claimant refuses to make payment of claimant's share of fees for counter claims, then the same will have to be made by the respondent on behalf of the claimant, failing which the Tribunal would not adjudicate the counter claims.

3. It was made clear to both the parties that in case of non-payment of fees and expenses of the Arbitrators, the Tribunal may have resort to Sections 38 & 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. The representative of the respondent informed that as regards travelling allowance and accommodation bill for the Presiding Arbitrator is concerned, the same has been sanctioned by the competent authority and will be paid in a day or two. He also informed that the issue regarding payment of fees of the Arbitrators have been referred to the Advocate General through higher authorities and he is likely to get his approval in a day or two after which the payment will be made immediately. The Tribunal informed the respondent's representative that he will have to resolve the issues regarding the fees for counter claims before the next hearing, failing which the counter claims will not be adjudicated by the Tribunal.”

In fact, the Tribunal has indicated that they would not adjudicate the counter claim unless the fees directed by them is paid by the respondent. The nature of minutes recorded further indicated that the Tribunal has more interested in the fees rather than concluding the proceedings. Thereafter, this application came to be filed.

5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner would submit that the fees charged by the Arbitral Tribunal for every sittings conducted by them and the minutes recorded by the learned Arbitral Tribunal would clearly indicate that rather than disposing the matter, the learned Arbitrators are interested only for claiming exorbitant fees and the way in which, they have expressed their mind would also indicate that they become de jure to perform their duties. Therefore, when such intention has been expressed, the continuation of proceedings with the same Arbitrators will result in biased and impartial award. The element of bias is always attached with such proceedings. Hence, his submission is that till now, more than Rs.75 lakhs have been paid to the Arbitral Tribunal by both sides and the above amount paid is against various provisions of the Act. Schedule IV of the Act prescribes the nature of the fees payable the maximum limit of the amount payable under Schedule IV, in any event, shall not exceed Rs.30 lakhs, whereas the nature of fees collected under various heads including hearing charges etc. makes it clear that the Arbitral Tribunal is unable to perform their duties without any bias. According to his contentions, mandate of Arbitrators to be terminated and a fresh arbitrator should be appointed to continue the proceedings from the stage, where the Arbitrators have left the proceedings.

6. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent would submit that the fees has never been fixed by the respondent and 32 hearings went off very well. The Arbitral Tribunal demanding fees separately for the counter claim, is not prohibited under the statute. Section 38 of the Act gives such power to the Arbitral Tribunal to demand the fees for counter claim. Hence, his submission is that so far, 32 hearings are over, only at the fag end of the proceedings, this petition has been filed and much water has already been flown in this matter; the Arbitrators are only technical persons, if they are removed at this stage, there will be a further delay in the proceedings. Hence, he has opposed for terminating the mandate of arbitrators.

7. Before going to the details of facts, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgement reported in 2019 SCC ONL SC 906 in the matter of NHAI Vs. Gayatri Jhansi roadways Ltd. has held in para 8 as follows :-

“8. Faced with this order, the respondent moved an application on 08.05.2018 under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to terminate the mandate of the arbitrators, inasmuch as, according to the respondent, the arbitrators had wilfully disregarded the agreement between the parties and were, therefore, de jure unable to act any further in the proceedings.”

8. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in its judgement reported in 2019 SCC ONL Raj 6 in the matter of Doshion Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. at para 19, Hon'ble Judge has stated as follows:-

“19. The above provisions provide for termination of mandate of the arbitrator if he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions. The phrase 'de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions' has not been defined and/or elaborated in any manner in the Act. However, in the opinion of this Court in case the events during the conduct of proceedings before the arbitrator leads to a doubt in the mind of a party regarding prejudice against it and qua the impartial conduct of proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, the said situation would fall within de facto inability of the arbitrator to perform his functions.”

9. This Court in a judgement reported in 2010 (2) CTC 357 in the matter of Madras Fertilizers Ltd., Vs. SICGIL India Limited and others, has held in para 23 and 24 as follows :-

“23. The words used in Section 14(1)(a) is that the mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate if he has become de jure unable to perform his functions. (emphasis supplied). It is true that the second respondent is ready to go ahead with the proceedings, but somehow, the proceedings got bogged down in the light of the controversy with regard to fixation of fees by the second respondent. The word “Perform his functions used in Section 14 (1)(a) will simply performing his functions effectively without any bias and with full confidence of both the parties. Performing this functions does not simply going through the motion without instilling confidence in the minds of the parties.

24. Now, if the mandate is not terminated and the second respondent is permitted to continue with Arbitration proceedings, it will amount to forcing a higher fee on the petitioner which they are not capable of paying. Further, after these controversies, disputes, exchange of correspondences, etc. with regard to fixation of fee, if the second respondent continues the Arbitration proceedings, the petitioner may not be in a proper frame of mind to proceed with the arbitration before the second respondent. They will definitely have some doubt as to the conduct of the Arbitrator and this doubt would certainly lead to loss of confidence. Therefore, such an unpleasant situation is to be avoided in the best interest of the parties including the Arbitrator.”

10. Further, the High Court of Delhi in a judgement reported in 2018 SCC Onl Del 9241 in the matter of Delhi State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd. Vs. Bawana Infra Development, in paras 14 to 19 has held as follows :-

“14. Even in the general parlance, “sum in dispute” shall include both claim and counter claim amounts. If the legislature intended to have the Arbitral Tribunal exceed the ceiling limit by charging separate fee for claim and counter claim amounts, if would have provided so in the Fourth Schedule.

15. Proviso to Section 38(1) of the Act can only apply when the Arbitral Tribunal is not to fix its fee in terms of Fourth Schedule to the Act. It would not have any bearing on the interpretation to be put to the Fourth Schedule. It is noted that as regards fee even under the Amended Act, the Arbitral Tribunal is free to fix its schedule of fee in an adhoc arbitration which is conducted without the intervention of the Court. Even where the Arbitral Tribunal is appointed by the Court under Section 11 of the Act, in absence of rules framed under Section 11(14) of the Act, it is not in every case that the Arbitral Tribunal has to fix its fee in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Act. Therefore, the proviso to Section 38(1) of the Act would have no bearing on the interpretation being put to the Fourth Schedule and the phrase “sum in dispute” therein.

16. An argument was made that the adjudication of counter claim would require extra effort from the Arbitrator and therefore, the Arbitrator should be entitled to charge a separate fee for the same. I cannot agree with this argument. The object of providing for counter claim is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid divergent findings. Keeping the object of the amendment in view, the ceiling on fee as prescribed in Fourth Schedule of the Act cannot be allowed to be breached.

17. In view of the above, the Sole Arbitrator is requested to withdraw his order claiming separate fee for the amounts claims in the Statement of Claim and the counter claim. The amount of Rs.13,15,250/- deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court in compliance with the order dated 22.02.2018 passed in I.A. No.2549 of 2018 in Arb. P. 420/2016 shall be refunded by the Registry of this Court to the petitioner along with any interest accrued thereon.

18. I express my sincere gratitude to the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus.

19. The petitioner is disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to cost.”

11. In a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. in para 23 taking into the same issue, has held that the cap of Rs.49,87,500/- in Entry No.6 as the maximum fee, which can be charged per arbitrator under Schedule IV is reasonable and in furtherance of the recommendation made in the 246th Law Commission Report.

12. From the above position of law, makes it clear that the fees should be reasonable and should not be unreasonable one. The minutes of the Arbitrators from the beginning of first meeting dated 14.02.2019 indicates the charges for various heads. They have also directed the parties to pay advance fees. From the beginning, every minutes recorded, during the proceedings, this Court could find that there is a direction to the parties to pay the fees first. In the last minutes, the Arbitrators expressed their view that they would not decide the counter claim, if the separate fees is not paid. It is also relevant to note that once the dispute is raised in a reference, the dispute includes the claim and the counter claim. Though Section 38 gives some power to fix fees for counter claim, it is to be noted that once the Arbitrators have entered a reference for adjudication, the dispute would mean not only dispute referred but also the counter claim. Therefore, directing the parties to pay such amount, otherwise the claims would not be entertained,iIn fact, it leads to a fact that fairness in the entire proceedings is absent from the very beginning. It is also to be noted that in every meetings and minutes the fees has not been paid by the consensus of the parties, rather it was only the direction by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an agreement between the parties to pay such amount as contended by the respondent's counsel. The word “Perform his functions” as required under Section 14 of the Act includes, unbiased and impartiality in every action. When the proceedings of the Arbitral Tribunal gives any room towards bias or impartiality, the same will lead to only conclusion that the Tribunal has become de jure and unable to perform its functions as required under law. The Tribunal constituted, cannot just simply perform the proceedings, it should remove all doubts, particularly, with regard to the bias and partiality etc. When such things indicate the element of doubt as to bias or towards partiality, the Court has to necessarily hold that the Tribunal become de jure and unable to perform the functions properly. The entire proceedings recorded from 14.02.2019 till 19.02.2020 indicates that there is only a direction to pay the amount. When the Tribunal allowed the applications to amend the counter claim and entertained the documents, ought to have decided the issue in the event and non-payment of any money, have been included as cost in the award, rather than indicating their mind not to take up the very issue, which is raised as one of the issue gives a reasonable doubt as to partiality. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in this case, the Aribtral Tribunal has become de jure and unable to perform their functions properly. Accordingly, their mandate has to be terminated.

13. At this stage, when the Court is about to terminate the Arbitrators, the learned Advocate General and the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent submitted that the Arbitrator can be substituted by new Arbitrators and continue from the stage where they left and they have also suggested that since the technical expert is also required in this matter, each side can nominate or suggest the name of the retired Engineers and one Presiding Arbitrator to be appointed by this Court, probably, from the retired High Court Judges list. Since the consensus reached between the parties with regard to terminating the mandate of the Arbitrators and substituting new Arbitrator viz., Hon'b

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

le Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar (Retd.), former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and expert retired engineers viz., Mr. M. Gnanasekaran, No.G2, Sai Sadhan Apartment, 19/4, Zacariah Colony 2nd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600094 Mobile No.9444070166 suggested by the petitioner and Mr. Jayasingh Ashar, C-27, Navyug Mansion, Naushir Barucha Marg, Mumbai 400007 Phone No.02223850018 suggested by the respondent will be Arbitrators and the Presiding Arbitrar is Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar (Retd.), Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir. 14. Further, taking note of the fact that both the parties have already paid more than Rs.75 lakhs and 75% of the proceedings already over and the matter is pending for hearing the arguments and passing award, this Court is of the view that flat sum of Rs.30 lakhs is fixed as the fee of Arbitrators and out of that Rs.30 lakhs, Presiding Arbitrator fee shall be fixed at Rs.15 lakhs and each member of the Arbitrators i.e., expert engineers fees is fixed at Rs.7.5 lakhs each. Apart from that, the incidental expenses i.e., place and travel expenses etc. shall be borne by both the parties. 15. It is also made it clear that the newly constituted Arbitral Tribunal shall continue the proceedings from the stage where it was left by the then Arbitrators. The Minutes of meeting recorded on 19.02.2020, indicate that Government counter claim has been received and the documents on their side also marked as 104 and 105 and further affidavit also. In such view of the matter, the learned Arbitrators are requested to give one more opportunity to the respondents to confront the documents filed by the applicant pertaining to the amended counter claim. Thereafter, after hearing of both parties, the Tribunal is directed to pass award, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 16. Accordingly, with the above observations, this Original Petition is allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 P.K. Periyasamy Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-10-2020 N. Masilamani Versus The Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-10-2020 West Haryana Highways Projects Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-09-2020 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram Versus Pandurangan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Vellore & Another Versus Mymoon Bi, (Died), S.M. Ahmed Basha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 Saroj Kumari Versus Executive Engineer, Dakchhinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur Versus Laxman Seetaram Neulkar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-08-2020 M/s. Utopia Projects Pvt. Ltd., Goa Versus Christopher Agnelo Pinto & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
20-08-2020 Jmc Projects (India) Ltd Versus Indure Private Limited High Court of Delhi
18-08-2020 Univalue Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-08-2020 M/s. Singhi Project Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-08-2020 Hariom Project Private Limited Versus Military Engineer Services, Director Of Contract Management And Ors. High Court of Delhi
06-08-2020 S. Suresh Kumar Versus The Chief Engineer (Personnel)Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,TANGEDCO, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-08-2020 Dwarkadhis Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Versus Manoj Panwar & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 Velan & Others Versus The Junior Engineer, Public Works Department/ Water Resources Department, Thanjavur District Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 R. Padmavathy Versus The Junior Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Thanjavur Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-07-2020 D. Sankar Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D., W.R.D. (Retd.) Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Surinder Singh Alias Surinder Kumar Versus Garrison Engineer-1, R&D, Chandigarh & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-06-2020 Ramanathan Versus The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO,Opposite to Rohini Hospital, Thanjavur District & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Duraimanikam, Edaiyathimangalam Periyakulam Kanmai Pasana Vivasaigal Nalasangam, Represented by its President R. Bharathi Versus The Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-06-2020 Md. Ashraf Hussain Laskar Versus The Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Roads, Assam, Guwahati & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-06-2020 Maharaja Versus S. Gangadharan, The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Erode & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 R. Sridhar Versus The Chief Engineer (Personnel), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Circle, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-05-2020 D.P. Saraf Versus Sub Area Manager, S.E.C.L. Rajgamaar Project Korba Area & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-05-2020 ISPAT Projects Ltd. Versus C. I. T., W. B.-I, Kolkata High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-05-2020 Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Private Limited Versus Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-04-2020 Parveen Roadways, Transporters and Handling Contractors, Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Manager N. Divya Versus The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer/Fur Division, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-03-2020 S. Durai Versus The Assistant Engineer, CIT Nagar-I, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle, Saidapet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Senior General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Ministry of Defence, Trichy Versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By its Presiding Officer, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Tirunelveli Solar Project Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Mr.P.Elavarasu, Asst. General Manager – Project, Rajasthan Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), Rep. by its Chairman, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees Central Organisation, Virudhunagar Versus The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Virudhunagar Distribution Circle, Virudhunagar Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-03-2020 Abhishek Jain Versus Sandwoods Infratech Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Others Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
02-03-2020 M/s. Project Engineering Corporation Limited, Ernakulam, Represented by Manager (Administrations) Binu Jacob Versus M/s. Doshion Private Ltd., Ahmedabad, Represented by Its Director, Rakshit Doshi High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 M/s. Hardware Tools & Machinery Project Pvt Ltd. Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
02-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by Chief Engineer, MTP (Railways), Chennai Versus B. Engineers & Builders Limited, Bhubaneswar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Biswarup Sen Versus Attcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-02-2020 R. Natarajan Versus The Project Director, Project Implementation Agency (P.I.A) Emergency Tsunami Reconstruction Project, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 M/s. Unique Omega Builders, Rep. By its Partner and Authorised Signatory P. Nalasamy Versus Mag Link Infra Projects (P) Ltd., Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Manaj Tollway Private Limited Versus Rajendra Rahane Superintending Engineer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Shanabhai Popatbhai Bharwad Versus Ballard Project Pvt. Ltd & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-02-2020 MES No. 220203, Jagat Bahadur, Retired FGM (SK), Office of the Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Zakhama Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Chief Engineer, Latur Zone & Competent Offer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Another Versus Nathuram In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-02-2020 Samundeeswari V/S The Special Tahsildhar, MRL Aromatic Project (Now CPCL), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Another Versus Rahamatullah Khan Alias Rahamjulla Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer Thiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO, Thiruvannamalai Versus The Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Sonartori Projects & Another Versus Tapan Kumar Laha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Sonartori Projects & Another Versus Tapan Kumar Laha & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 M/s. Hitachi Power Europe GmbH, Represented by the Authorised Signatory of its Project Office, Chennai, Pravesh P. Jain Versus Income tax Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Udaya Kumar Versus Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Ph Division, Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as VGN Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.), Represented by its Authorised Signatory A. Rangappan Versus The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Union of India through the Executive Engineer (C), Postal Civil Division, V/S Recon A proprietary concern of Rajesh Yadav High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 M/s. High End Quality Construction (P) Ltd., PWD & CPWD Contractors rep by its Managing Director T. Sudha Versus The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai Versus M. Vijayalakshmi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-02-2020 N.V. Baabu Versus The Superintending Engineer Highways (H), (O) & (M), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Nilgiris Electricity Distribution Circle, Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District & Another Versus Indira & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited, Narakal, Represented by Its Divisional Engineer (Internal) Parur, P. Amanulla Versus The Secretary, Narakal Grama Panchayat & Another High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 Mansinghbhai Chhaganbhai Bhojaviya V/S The Deputy Executive Engineer High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-02-2020 M. Velusamy Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., TANGEDCO), General Construction Circle, Tatabad, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Jai Bharathi Constructions Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Surender Reddy, Telangana Versus The Executive Director (Signal Projects) Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. JV Engineering Associate, Civil Engineering Contractors, Represented by its Partner, S. Jaikumar Versus General Manager, CORE, Allahabad, Represented by Deputy Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, Chennai, Egmore High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Tapas Kumar Barat & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-02-2020 R.G. Girijamma Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer Upper Tunga Project Shimoga High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 Nish Techno Projects Private Limited Versus Surat Municipal Corporation High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
04-02-2020 The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Unit - I, Coimbatore Versus R. Parthasarathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by the Executive Engineer & Admin. Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Coimbatore Versus S. Doraisamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 S. Pugazhendi, President, Subash Chandra Bose Podhu Nala Sangam, Nagapattinam Versus Dy.Superintending Engineer/Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintending Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram (Appearing on Behalf of Southern Railway) Versus P. Rajendran Asari & Another High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Puroshattam Sharma Versus Executive Engineer, Gwalior North M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
30-01-2020 Andhra Pradesh Power Coordination Committee Vidyut Soudha, Represented by its Chief Engineer & Others V/S M/s. NSL Sugars Ltd., Represented by its AGM - Power Trading & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
30-01-2020 GE Power India Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Alstom Projects Ltd.) Versus A. Aziz Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Natarajan & Others Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Villupuram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 M/s. Ramkrishna Forgings Limited registered office at Ramkrishna Chambers, Kolkata and its works at Baliguma, Kolabira, Seraikela Kharswan through its Senior General Manager (Finance), Rahul Kumar Bagaria & Others V/S The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Finance Department, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
29-01-2020 M/s. Outshiny India Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Director T. Sridhar Versus Dee Ess Engineers India Projects Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Head - Finance, Admin & HR S.S. Sivaprakash, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Chinnagottikallu Village & Mandal Chittoor Andhra Pradesh & Others Versus C.J. Vijaya Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Jkm Infra Projects Limtied, Noida Thru. Directors Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-01-2020 Kalyani Saha & Another Versus M/s. Chowdhury Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
24-01-2020 M/s. S & S Green Projects Private Limited Versus V. Sudhakar High Court of for the State of Telangana
23-01-2020 M/s Arun Vyapar Udyog Limited, Rep.by its General Manager K. Venkataraman Versus The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/North Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. URC Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory V. Ganesan, Manager Versus M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager Engg (C) Project Division - IV, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Through Executive Engineer, M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. Versus Geeta Bai Dhakad Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
22-01-2020 The Divisional Manager F.D.C.M. West Chanda Project Division & Others Versus Nilkanth In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-01-2020 M/s. IRCON International Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking), Rep. by its Joint General Manager(South), Bangalore Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintending Engineer(H), Villupuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-01-2020 The Junior Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L & others Versus Bhagwan Oil Mill Through it's Proprietor Bhagwan Yadavrao Pund Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
15-01-2020 The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project, Selu, District Parbhani, Maharashtra Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 Techno Unique Infratech Private Limited Versus Gammon Infrastructure Projects Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-01-2020 A. Balanarasimha Rao Versus A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., (Government of A.P. Undertaking) Bandlaguda Project, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its General Manager (Projects) Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
10-01-2020 Chakilam Laxmi Narasimha Rao Versus A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Ltd., (Government of A.P. Undertaking) Bandlaguda Project, Rangareddy District, Rep. by its General Manager (Projects) Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
09-01-2020 R. Sridhar Versus The Chief Engineer/Distribution, Chennai egion/North, Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation & Distribution Corporation, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras