✦ Gauhati High Court · 14 May 2024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. The Chief Engineer (Highways) adn 3 Ors PWD

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND5 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
14 May 2024
Bench
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

Outcome

Disposed of

With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Judgment

SRK-TK(JV) a joint venture formed between M/s SRK Construction and Projects Private Limited 6-3-665, Flat No. 501, Lumbini Enclave, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082 and TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun, AP 791110 registered office at Model Village, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh and represented by Shri Tara Techi, Son of Late Techi Kerap and working as Director TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun VERSUS The Chief Engineer (Highways) and 3 Ors PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Chief Eingneer Zone V Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 1 Parliament Street Transport Bhawan New Delhi 110001 3:The Reginal Oficer Age: 0 Occupation : MoRTH and H Itanagar House No.522 Milan Nagar (Gutlung) Tezpur Page No.# 3/7 Assam 784001 4:The Executive Enignneer Age: 0 Occupation : Naharlagun HW Division PWD Arunachal Pradesh Nirjuli 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajiv Cheri Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia Case No. : Arb.P./5/2024 SRK -TK(JV) a joint venture formed between M/s SRK Construction and Projects Private Limited 6-3-665, Flat No.

501, Lumbini Enclave, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082 and TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun, AP 791110 registered office at Model Village, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh and represented by Shri Tara Techi, Son of Late Techi Kerap and working as Director TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun VERSUS The Chief Engineer (Highways) and 3 Ors PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Chief Eingneer Zone V Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 1 Parliament Street Transport Bhawan New Delhi 110001 3:The Reginal Oficer Age: 0 Occupation : MoRTH and H Page No.# 4/7 Itanagar House No.522 Milan Nagar (Gutlung) Tezpur Assam 784001 4:The Executive Enignneer Age: 0 Occupation : Naharlagun HW Division PWD Arunachal Pradesh Nirjuli 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajiv Cheri Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia Case No. : Arb.P./6/2024 SRK-TK(JV) a joint venture formed between M/s SRK Construction and Projects Private Limited 6-3-665, Flat No.

501, Lumbini Enclave, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500082 and TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun, AP 791110 registered office at Model Village, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh and represented by Shri Tara Techi, Son of Late Techi Kerap and working as Director TK Engineering Consortium Pvt Ltd Model village Naharlagun VERSUS The Chief Engineer (Highways) and 3 Ors PWD, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Chief Eingneer Zone V Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Road Transport and Highways 1 Parliament Street Transport Bhawan New Delhi 110001 3:The Reginal Oficer Page No.# 5/7 Age: 0 Occupation : MoRTH and H Itanagar House No.522 Milan Nagar (Gutlung) Tezpur Assam 784001 4:The Executive Enignneer Age: 0 Occupation : Naharlagun HW Division PWD Arunachal Pradesh Nirjuli 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Rajiv Cheri Advocate for the Respondent : Rintu Saikia BEFORE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Date : 14.05.2024 ORDER Heard Mr. J. Likha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. R. Saikia, learned Standing counsel, Highway, for the respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the respondents nos. 2 & 3.

2.

The petitioner is a registered company represented by its power of attorney, namely, Shri Tara Techi. The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondents for “Double laning of Papu-Yupia-Hoj-Potin road from Km

0.00 to 53.00 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh under SARDP-NE”. The contract agreements were signed in the year 2010-11. Page No.# 6/7

3.

The contract agreements are mentioned hereinbelow: (i). agreement No. CE (HW)/01 of 2010-11 for Job No. State Road Ar.Pkg.- 2010-11-011 dated 03.09.2010. (ii). agreement No. CE (HW)/02 of 2010-11 for Job No. State Road Ar.Pkg.- 2010-11-013 dated 03.09.2010. (iii). agreement No. CE (HW)/03 of 2010-11 for Job No. 229 Ar.Pkg.-2010-11- 012 dated 03.09.2010. (iv). agreement No. CE (HW)/01 of 2011-12 for Job No. 052A/Ar.Pkg/2010- 11/033 dated 15.07.2011.

4.

The instant petitions have been filed under provision of Section 29-A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of mandate of the appointed Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Justice V. N. Khare, Former Chief Justice of India, Justice B. K. Sarma, former Judge, Gauhati High Court and Sri Shambhu Singh, former AS&FA, MoRTH in respect of the aforementioned Arbitration Cases. The proceedings are in advance stage of cross-examination of the witnesses. However, some further additional time beyond the regular time frame of 6+ 12+ 6 months is required due to voluminous nature of the case.

5.

The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection if the extension is allowed because sufficient grounds have been shown for extension. It is submitted that a petition under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed, which was disposed of on 29.04.2023. The first sitting of the Tribunal was on 08.06.2022. Page No.# 7/7

6.

Considering the submissions at the Bar and in view of the consensus reached at the Bar, I deem it a fit case to extend the time for another 6(six) months from 23.05.2024 to 23.11.2024.

Operative part

7.

With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 16.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Gauhati High Court, on 14 May 2024. The bench was SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments