Railtech Technologies Pvt Ltd v. Union of India

1. It is submitted that in order dated 20.03.2025, the appearance of Mr. Rishav Dubey, G.P., is not marked. Accordingly, the appearance of Mr. Rishav Dubey, G.P., be read as marked in the order dated 20.03.2025, along with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Senior Central Government Counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Senior Central Government Counsel, submits that he has already filed the reply. However, the same is not available on record. He, however, has handed over a hard copy of the same, which has been perused by the Court.

4. The facts of the case indicate that on 25.11.2022, a tender was opened KUMAR KAURAV for the supply of an item, namely, “Set of TM Duct for MEMU3PH coach” in which the petitioner participated, and on 30.11.2022, the respondent issued a letter of acceptance in favour of the petitioner. During the subsistence of the letter of acceptance, a purchase order dated 22.12.2022 was placed with the petitioner.

5. The delivery period for the item was from 01.03.2023 to 29.04.2023. At the request of the petitioner, the delivery period appears to have been extended until 20.05.2023.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the standard governing conditions of tender are the general conditions of contract and IRS conditions of contract.

7. The respondent, on account of certain alleged violations of the terms of the contract, has cancelled the contract by imposing 10% general damages. According to the respondent, the firm failed to deliver the goods as per the contract despite being given a fair opportunity through an extension of the delivery period.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, as per Clause 2900, the dispute arising in the instant case is amenable to adjudication by an Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A & C Act). The said clause reads as under:

entered into by the Railway Board and by the Head of the Organisation in respect of contracts entered into by the other Organisations under the Ministry of Railways. The Gazetted Railway Officer to be appointed as arbitrator however will not be one of those who had an opportunity to deal with the matters to which the contract relates or who in the course of their duties as railway servant have expressed views on all or any of the matters under dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract. (b) In the event of the arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being unable to act for any reason, or his award being set aside by the court for any reason, it shall be lawful for the authority appointing the arbitrator to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid.

(c) It is further a term of this contract that no person other than the person appointed by the authority as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and that if for any reason that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to 'arbitration at all.

(d) The arbitrator may from t ime-to-time with the consent of all the parties to the contract enlarge the time for making the award. (e) Upon every and any such reference, the assessment of the cost incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. (f) Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rules there under and any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. (g) The venue of arbitration shall be the place from which the acceptance note Is issued or such other place as the arbitrator at his discretion may determine. (h) In this clause the authority, to appoint the arbitrator includes, if there be no such authority, the officer who is for the time being discharging the functions of that authority, whether in addition to other functions or otherwise.”

9. It is thus seen that the dispute is amenable to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It is explicitly evident that where there exists an arbitration clause in the event any dispute arises between the parties, there is no impediment in appointing an independent Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the same. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd.,[1] TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd.,[2] Bharat Broadband Network Limited v. United Telecoms Limited.,[3] and Interplay between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 & the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, In re 4.

10. Having considered the facts of the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the dispute arisen is capable of being decided by the Arbitrator.