1
BEFORE EMPANELLED EXPERT, APPOINTED BY
MSME
COLINCIL
AT GURUGRAM
ARBITRATION CASE NO. 2860 OF 2O2I
In the matter of
EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS &
CABLES PNVATE LIMITEI) PETITIONER
VERSUS
TRANSMIS SION CORPORATION OF
ANDHRA PRADESH LTD. RESPONDENT
APPLICA TION ON B EHALF OF RESP ONDENT F'OR
RAISING PLEA OT' CORAM-N ON-JUDICE IN TERM S
OF'
SECTION t6 0F ARBIT RATION AND C ONCILIA TION
ACT,1996
MOSTRE SPECTFU LLY SHOWE TH:-
l. That this is an application seeking to raise plea of coram_non_judice
as the present proceedings are not maintainable and thus
the present
Application is being filed under Section 16 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. That the ECCL (Claimant) had following claims for supply of
goods and seryices to the petitioner; -
a. Case No. 3 (Invoices Sl. Nos. I _ 57 barred by Limitation
&
Invoices Sl. No. 58 - 62 Allowed)
b. Case No. 4 (A1l Invoices barred byLimitation)
c. Case No. 7 (Invoices Sl. Nos. I _ 25 barred by Limitation
&
Invoices Sl. No. 26 - 45 Allowed)
3. That the Case Nos. 3 & 7 were adjudicated by Haryana Micro and
Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (HMSEFC) and award was
passed on 21.06.2010 and allowed and rejected claims
as above.
o 't" The matters have been appealed accordingly under Section 34,
+ 6, gyl Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and all the findings
Rttu
o *
\
Chief Engineer/Transmission
APTBANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDIiA
VIJAYAWADA.52O OO4,
I
2
related to the above Award dated 21.06.2010 have now attained
finality by orders of this Hon'ble Court, High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh and High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
and before this Hon'ble Court and Execution Petitions are
concluded.
4. That on 14 July 2017,ECCL moved an application under Section
l7(1)(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act,
2015 (*2015 Amendment Act"), to secure the amount payable
under the claims that were not determined in the Awards as they
were held to be time barred. On 6 September 2017, the Council
dismissed the application for being non-maintainable.
5. Thereafter on 14 October 2017,ECCL filed an application for the
review of the Order dated 06.09.2017 , arraying the Appellant and
various banks as Respondent and garnishees respectively. On 1l
July 2018, the Respondent No.l Council allowed the application
and passed two orders, each for Case No. 3 and7, without issuing
notice to the Appellant. It directed the payment of interest of Rs.
5.9 crore Crore and Rs. 6.09 Crore as interest. Pursuant to the
Order, the bank has seized the Accounts of the company.
6. This is evidenced by how the executing court in this case observed
that the Appellant has deposited the awarded amount and interest
of INR 19.5 Lakh and 24.5LaY.h in Case No. 7 and 3, and ECCL is
not entitled to the additional amount claimed, but ECCL had
surreptitiously obtained this relief from the Respondent No.l
Council via the orders dated 1l July 2018 under Section 17 ofthe
Act. The Executing Court noted that the Respondent No.I Council
had no jurisdiction to grant such reliefunder Section l7 ofthe Act.
o
+
o *
Chief Engineer/Transmission
APTRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
FI VIJAYAWADA-520 OO4.
3
7. In this case, the tribunal that rendered the Awards' dated 21 June
2010 is functus ofhcio, i.e. defunct, in terms of Section 32(l) of the
Arbitration Act.
8. In fact, order dated 11 July 2018 permitting the revision Section 17
application was granted by a different tribunal under the aegis of
Respondent No.l Council on I I July 2018. The Impugned Orders
have remanded the application back to the Council without regard
to this discrepancy in composition of the original tribunal and that
granting the S.17 relief, making the very basis of the orders bad in
law.
9. That the impugned orders herein set aside the order dated 11 July
2018 passed by (Council). It is after the passing of order dated
11.07 .2018 when it was in vogue, the Respondent No. 2 filed Claim
No. 2860 of 2021 and Claim No. 2861 of 2021 before Council,
relying upon the Order dated l1 July 2018. The said order dated
11.07.2018 provided for two parts, one part -l deals with barred
claims and part-2 deals with allowed claims.
l0.That all the aforesaid proceedings in the matter of dispute of
invoices I to 57 by the orders of last court has attained finality
therefore, the Doctrine of Res Judicata comes into operation and
prohibits all courts to entertain any proceedings on the said issue
which is concerned to invoices 1-57. The petitioner herein has filed
the present application only with a wrongful intention to harass the
Respondent by canvassing frivolous litigation and wasting the time,
of this Hon'ble Council.
l l.That apart from the above said proceedings filed by the Petitioner,
the Respondent also has challenged the orders of the leamed Addl.
T District Judge passed in Arb. Case No. 361 of 2019
* Dated:23.08.2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
*
I
E-n
Ch ief
g nee r/Tra ns m iss ion
i
APTHANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
VIJAYAWADA-520 OO4.
4
Haryana vide the F.A.O. No. 10507 of 2015 The Hon'ble High
Court has passed a common order dated 29.01.2016 upholding the
orders of this Council dated: 21.06.2010, wherein invoices l-25 are
held to be barred by the limitation. Thus on Second occasion also
the Hon'ble High Court upheld the orders dt. 21.06.2010 passed by
this Hon'ble Council and thus confirmed that invoices no. 1 to 57
are barred by Law olLimitation.
12.It is submitted that although as stated above, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed the orders on 06.05.2016 tlre Petitioner as a part of
abusing the process oflaw on earlier occasion has filed proceedings
in 2017 as to invoices I to 57 but this Hon'ble Council held that it
is not feasible to entertain and vide order 06.05.2016 and vide the
orders 06.09.2017 has closed it. Then again in year 2018, the
Petitioner filed proceedings before this Hon'ble Council in respect
of said invoices I to 57, besides other issues. The Hon'ble Council
entertained the same and passed interim orders dated: 11.07.2018
in respect ofother issues and dismissed the invoices related to l-57
and I -25 respectively.
l3.Therefore, the Respondent filed W.P. No. 34412 of 2018
challenging said order dt. 11.07.2018 passed by this Hon'ble
Council. Although, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P dismissed the
same, the Respondent filed S.L.P. No 2588 of 2020 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the Hon'ble Court granted interim
Stay and thus the proceedings of 2018 entertaining the invoices of
1 to 57 and I to25, respectively on this Council is seized ofby the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, yet when the same is again the present
petition is filed. Infact, it is submitted that after the orders dated
I
4:. 21.06.2010 this Hon'ble Commission becomes functus officio, and
* PR'ASA
is precluded from entertaining any proceedings on the issues
o VIJA
s Put
YA W4
0n iAJ
!,n,
U
*
o Fe 9d.
(A .P.)
rv o;
OA-,t.
I
STS8
Chief Engineer/liansmission
FI APTRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
VIJAYAWADA.52O OO4.
5
covered by said order of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held the said principle of law in State Bank of India & Ors. Vs.
S.N. Goyal, (8) SCC,2018. As per the said ratio, this Hon'ble
Council has no authority to entertain the present Petition.
l4.It is submitted that the Petitioner has filed applications in various
forums for the payment of in delayed payments. The
interest
Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC No. 414 & 415 of 2020 in SLP No.
2588 and 89 of 2020 fi I ed by the Petitioner held that the Execution
petitions and Execution Appeals filed by both the parties to be
processed before the Commercial Court, Krishna District and
deliver the order on the merits on the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme court the execution petitions were proceeded to hear the
matters. The Hon'ble Commercial Court has passed an orders dt:
12.10.2020, stating that the Respondent has paid the total amount
of Rs.19,52,090/- towards the satisfaction of the award in CEP No.
01 of2020 and has to make a payment of balance amount of only
Rs. 57,669/- in CEP No. 01 and 02 of 2020 and also Rs.22,42,619/-
in other case. This Respondent has immediately paid the said
balance amount. Aggrieved, by the Order of the Commercial Court
Order daled:12.10.2020 the Petitioner has filed Civil Revision
petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which
are pending for adjudication.
l5.It is submitted that concerned to the subject dispute of present
application of invoices 1 to 57 the last court i.e., Supreme Court has
upheld the Order dated: 21.06.2010 of this Council and thus, closed
the issue as time barred.
16.It is submitted that the Petitioner has relied on the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana High Court Judgement, daled:26.04.2019 in FAO
ll34 of 2017 stating that the Court can only quash the Award and
I
h..-
Chief E ng in ee r/Tra ns mis s
ion
APTHANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
VIJAYAWADA-520 OO4.
6
has no power to alter or modiff the Award and that once the
Arbitration Award was set aside the parties can go for fresh
arbitration. It is submitted that said case law is irrelevant as there is
specific finding by last court.
lT.That the Application is Bonafide.
PRAYER
It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to :
Al allow the present Application in terms of Section 16 of Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and hold that the instant proceedings are
not maintainable and the present Arbitration Tribunal is not having
jurisdiction to entertain the present claim or case instituted by the
Claimant herein; and
B] pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVERY PRAY.
t
\..-
Chiel Engineer/Transmission
ChftrflE4iaeer flbunsdqrorh
vIJAYAWAFfzu\gmCO
FILED ON: 11.02.2025
NEW DELHI
Through
I
FILED BY
*
*
o
FI
tttd,^
.SI VA PRA SADA RAJU
rrftfu*
ADVOCATE
(RAKESH K. SHARMA)
FOR THE APPLICANT
B.Com., B'L.'
ADVOCATE & NOTARY
ReEd.No:5758
# 23-5.6, Va-ndanePu vari Street,
SatvanaraYanaPuram,
vtJiYAwADA'o2o oll'
7
BEFORE EMPANELLED EXPERT, APPOINTED BY MSME
COUNCIL
AT GURUGRAM
ARBITRATION CASE NO.2860 OF 2O2I
IN THE MATTER OF:
Equipment Conductors & Cables ... Claimant
Private Limited
VERSUS
Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh . . .Respondent
Limited (AP Transco)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sonopole Venkata Ramana S/o S.Obalesu, aged about 57 years,
working as Chief Engineer, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh
Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Near Gunadala, Eluru Road, Vijayawada,
Andhra Pradesh, R/o Vijayawada, A.P., do hereby solemnly affirm and
on oath state as under:-
l.That I am the Chief Engineer of Respondent No. 1, and I am dealing
with the present matter. I am well acquainted with facts of the case.
As such, I am competent to swear this affidavit on behalf of all the
Petitioners.
2.That the contents ofaccompanying IA (s) have been drafted by our
counsel at our instance are true to my knowledge and belief and
o information derived from the records. The counsel has been given
+
absolute instructions to frle this IA urgently.
o +
Chlel Englneer/Transmission
APTRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
F I vt JAYI'o.rA DA-520 004.
B
3. That the documents filed, if any alongwith the present IA(s) are true
and typed copies of their respective originals.
\-.
Chief Enqinee r/Trans m iss io n
APTRAN S6FOD{MT{TO U DHA
VIJAYAWADA.s20 OO4.
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent abovenamed do hereby veriff and declare that the
contents of para I to 3 of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge
and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Verified and attested at Vijaywada on this 11m day of February, 2025.
I
c nief E nKOX[tsHrTiss io n
APTRANSCO, VIDYUT SOUDHA
VIJAYAWADA-520 OO4.
c srv(t!"H;",{ffi*
o
+ .riri'l$Ijiflt'iifri"
