Bangalore District Court Union Of India vs Rajasekhar And Associates on 30 August, 2025 IN THE COURT OF THE LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (EXCLUSIVE COMMERCIAL COURT): BENGALURU CITY. (CCH89) Present: Sri.MALLIKARJUN, B.com., LL.M., LXXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU Dated this the 30th day of August, 2025 Com.A.P.No.57/2022 BETWEEN: Union of India, represented by: Represented by South Western Railways Chief Administrative Officer, Construction, No.18, Miller's Road, Bengaluru560046. : PETITIONER/S (Represented by M.K, Advocate) AND Rajasekhar & Associates Unit201, Landmark Plaza, No.299, Langford Road, Bengaluru560025 Represented by Mr.N.Satyanarayan managing Partner : RESPONDENT/S (Represented by S.B, Advocate) 2 Com.A.A.No.57/2022 JUDGMENT That highly aggrieved by the award published by the sole Arbitral Tribunal in A.C.No.110/2020 held between the petitioner and respondent dated 03.02.2022 present application is filed by the applicant. 2. That brief facts of the case are as under: That petitioner/applicant herein called for notice inviting tender for work of modification of 66KV double circute line crossing at KM 91/500600 in Kolar Chikkabalapur. The approximate value of the work was estimated to Rs.79,73,059/ with period of completion 6 months through vide Tender Notice No.CAO/CN/BNC/020/11, dated 11.05.2011, respondent herein participated in the bid and qualified. So the tender was awarded to him as per letter of acceptance (LOA) No.E CN29282011 dated 05.12.2011. The LOA has been accepted by the respondent herein on 08.12.2011 and entered into agreement bearing No.CAO/CN/BNC/73435/ A on 15.03.2012 on various terms and conditions. In the said agreement it is agreed between the parties that any disputes arising same can be resolve through arbitration proceedings. The respondents failed to complete the work within stipulated period of 6 months the period of agreement has not been extended further. The respondent delivered the material worth Rs.5,46,720/ on 12.07.2012, 3 Com.A.A.No.57/2022 the respondent has submitted a letter on 27.04.2013 and 30.04.2013 in the office of Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer (Construction) SWR without inward number and signature by any authorizing officer receiving stamp claiming to have supplied materials to sight without annexing the acknowledgment for having delivered materials to sight without annexing the acknowledgment for having delivered the materials to the petitioner store. The act of the respondent herein is contrary to the terms of the agreement. The respondent did not delivered the materials to the petitioners stores. Further the respondent submitted a letter on 19.09.2016 claiming that verbally he had informed to hold the works annexing a letter dated 29.11.2012 it has not been submitted to petitioner with a request for extension of time and it was not acknowledged by the respondent by executing a subsidiary agreement. Therefore the petitioner and respondent held joint inspection on 03.04.2017. The respondent in his letter dated 21.04.2017 admitted that DD + 12, 220 KV Towers are available at AM fabricators due to heavy structure and lakh of storage space at the site, these materials are retained at fabricators space. The respondent through vide letter dated 24.05.2017 requested for change of work location same was forwarded to competent authority for approval and it was approved as the conditions of contract do not permit the change of location. The respondent got 4 Com.A.A.No.57/2022 registered as MSME Enterprise on 19.08.2018 and filed an application before Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC). On 26.02.2019 claiming payment of Rs.52,80,284/ towards alleged sale on 27.04.2013 with interest u/Sec.16 of MSMED Act. The petitioner has filed objections denying the claim of the respondent as well as the terms of the agreement for resolution of the disputes. The MSEFC by its order dated 01.04.2019 held that conciliation failed and referred for arbitration same is against to the terms of the agreement. The deputy Director of the arbitration and conciliation center as appointed sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. After due enquiry the sole arbitrator published the award contrary to the terms of agreement, records, admissions of the respondent, baseless, perverse, oppose to public policy and settled principles of evidence. So a