C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20976/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2012 in AP No. 397/2009 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 08/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Prem Prakash, A.O.R. For RR No. 1 Mr. Anil Seth, Adv. Mr. S. K. Dhingra, A.O.R. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order. [KALYANI GUPTA] COURT MASTER [SHARDA KAPOOR] COURT MASTER [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]
C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 20976 OF 2013] RANI-ERA JV ….. APPELLANT VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the second respondent and having perused the impugned order as well as Clause 67.3 in the relevant Arbitration Clause which was sought to be invoked, the Memorandum of Understanding as between the appellant and the second respondent dated 25 th November, 2005, 28 th September, 2005 and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding as also between the appellant and the second respondent dated 21 st February, 2008, we are convinced that the appellant can independently work out its rights and grievances as against the second respondent with reference to any claim vis- á -vis first respondent relating to the works carried out prior to 22 nd November, 2007.
C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 3. It will be worthwhile to refer to Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28 th September, 2005, as between the appellant and the second respondent which reads as under:- “ 13. ARBITRATION Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be settled in the first instance amicably between the parties. If an amicable settlement cannot be reached as above, it will be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments thereof. The venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi.” 4. One other relevant clause that requires to be noted is Clause 9 in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 st February, 2008 which is to the following effect: “ 9. All claims arising out of the contract for the work done by M/s. RCPL shall be dealt in the normal course by M/s. RCPL till the same are adjudicated/finalised by M/s. RVNL and shall be to the account of M/s. RCPL. Any claims arising out of the contract in future shall be dealt with in terms of the contract and shall be for the benefit/account of M/s. EIEL.” 5. When we read Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding as between the appellant and the second respondent, we find that any dispute with reference to the said agreed terms as between the appellant and the first respondent can be settled by way of arbitration PAGE NO. 2 OF 4
C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the venue at Delhi. Further, first part of Clause 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding 21 st February, 2008, reflects that all claims arising out of the contract for the work done by the appellant by the Joint Venture till the same are adjudicated/finalised by the first respondent shall be to the account of the Joint Venture, while any claims arising out of the contract in future namely on and after 22 nd November, 2007 onwards to be dealt with in terms of the contract to enure to the benefit of the second respondent. 6. Therefore, reading Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20 th September, 2005 and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 st February, 2008 there is every right in the appellant to work out its remedy as against the second respondent in respect of the work carried out by the joint venture by referring to the contract entered into with the first respondent by way of arbitration invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. It is stated that the appellant has already invoked Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28 th September, 2005 and Arbitration has already commenced. PAGE NO. 3 OF 4
C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 In such circumstances with regard to the present claim of the appellant, it is needless to state that appellant can work out its remedy before the very same Arbitral Tribunal as against second respondent pertaining to whatever claim relating to the execution of the contract with the first respondent by the Joint Venture for any period prior to 22 nd November, 2006. 8. With the above said clarification, the appeal stands disposed of. …...................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] …...................................J [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] NEW DELHI JANUARY 08, 2015. PAGE NO. 4 OF 4
¢B C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20976/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2012 in AP No. 397/2009 passed by the High Court Of Delhi at New Delhi) RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 08/01/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, A.O.R. For Respondent(s) Mr. Prem Prakash, A.O.R. For RR No. 1 Mr. Anil Seth, Adv. Mr. S. K. Dhingra, A.O.R. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order. [KALYANI GUPTA] [SHARDA KAPOOR]Signature Not Verified COURT MASTER COURT MASTERDigitally signed byKalyani GuptaDate: 2015.01.2212:27:40 ISTReason: [SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE.]C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 20976 OF 2013] RANI-ERA JV ..... APPELLANT VERSUS
RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. ..... RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the second respondent and having perused the impugned order as well as Clause 67.3 in the relevant Arbitration Clause which was sought to be invoked, the Memorandum of Understanding as between the appellant and the second respondent dated 25th November, 2005, 28th September, 2005 and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding as also between the appellant and the second respondent dated 21st February, 2008, we are convinced that the appellant can independently work out its rights and grievances as against the second respondent with reference to any claim vis-a-vis first respondent relating to the works carried out prior to 22nd November, 2007.C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 3. It will be worthwhile to refer to Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28th September, 2005, as between the appellant and the second respondent which reads as under:- "13. ARBITRATION Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement shall be settled in the first instance amicably between the parties. If an amicable settlement cannot be reached as above, it will be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any amendments thereof. The venue of the arbitration shall be Delhi." 4. One other relevant clause that requires to be noted is Clause 9 in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 st February, 2008 which is to the following effect: "9. All claims arising out of the contract for the work done by M/s. RCPL shall be dealt in the normal course by M/s. RCPL till the same are adjudicated/finalised by M/s. RVNL and shall be to the account of M/s.
RCPL. Any claims arising out of the contract in future shall be dealt with in terms of the contract and shall be for the benefit/account of M/s. EIEL." 5. When we read Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding as between the appellant and the second respondent, we find that any dispute with reference to the said agreed terms as between the appellant and the first respondent can be settled by way of arbitrationPAGE NO. 2 OF 4C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with the venue at Delhi. Further, first part of Clause 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding 21st February, 2008, reflects that all claims arising out of the contract for the work done by the appellant by the Joint Venture till the same are adjudicated/finalised by the first respondent shall be to the account of the Joint Venture, while any claims arising out of the contract in future namely on and after 22nd November, 2007 onwards to be dealt with in terms of the contract to enure to the benefit of the second respondent. 6. Therefore, reading Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20th September, 2005 and the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding dated 21st February, 2008 there is every right in the appellant to work out its remedy as against the second respondent in respect of the work carried out by the joint venture by referring to the contract entered into with the first respondent by way of arbitration invoking the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. It is stated that the appellant has already invoked
Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 28 th September, 2005 and Arbitration has already commenced.PAGE NO. 3 OF 4C.A. No........ of 2015 @ SLP(C) No. 20976 of 2013 In such circumstances with regard to the present claim of the appellant, it is needless to state that appellant can work out its remedy before the very same Arbitral Tribunal as against second respondent pertaining to whatever claim relating to the execution of the contract with the first respondent by the Joint Venture for any period prior to 22nd November, 2006. 8. With the above said clarification, the appeal stands disposed of. ......................................J [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ......................................J [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] NEW DELHI JANUARY 08, 2015.PAGE NO. 4 OF 4
LISTED ON: 03.07.2014 BEFORE COURT NO: 11 ITEM: 29 SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 20976/2013 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF RANI-ERA JV ... PETITIONER VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2.7.2013 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, however, will file copy of the reply of Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the High Court has rejected the prayer in the Arbitration Petition.” It is submitted that pursuant to aforesaid order show cause notice to both the respondents was issued on 17.7.2013 by Regd. AD. Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate has filed vakalatnama/appearnace as well as counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1. Counter affidavit has been included in the SLP paper books. Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate has filed vakalatnama/appearnace on behalf of Respondent No.2 but he has not filed counter affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner has on 6.7.2013 filed requisite copy of short reply of Respondent No.2 and the same has been included in SLP paper books. For non-filing of counter affidavit by counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the matter was listed before the Ld.Registrar Court on 19.08.2013 and lastly listed on 25.9.2013 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:
-2- “Respondent No.1 has filed Vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 submit that counter is ready and will be filed within a week. File the Counter affidavit accordingly. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules, after expiry of the week.” It is further submitted that counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has on 8.10.2013 filed counter affidavit and the same has been included in SLP paper books. Service is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 2 nd DAY OF JULY, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Advocate 2. *Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate 3. Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (* You requested to serve copy of counter affidavit filed by you to Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate and file proof of service thereof.) P-1
Ð ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20976/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2012 in AP No. 397/2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi) RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) (With prayer for interim relief and office report) Date : 03/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Anil Seth,Adv. Mr. S.K. Dhingra,Adv. Ms. Shefali Mitra,Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Bansal,Adv. Mr. Vineet,Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash,Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Call after two weeks on a non-miscellaneous day. (NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTERSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byNarendra PrasadDate: 2014.07.0319:19:58 ISTReason:
LISTED ON: 30.06.2014 BEFORE COURT NO: ITEM: SECTION:XIV IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 20976/2013 WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF RANI-ERA JV ... PETITIONER VERSUS RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS OFFICE REPORT The matter above mentioned was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 2.7.2013 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order: “Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, however, will file copy of the reply of Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the High Court has rejected the prayer in the Arbitration Petition.” It is submitted that pursuant to aforesaid order show cause notice to both the respondents was issued on 17.7.2013 by Regd. AD. Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate has filed vakalatnama/appearnace as well as counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1. Counter affidavit has been included in the SLP paper books. Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate has filed vakalatnama/appearnace on behalf of Respondent No.2 but he has not filed counter affidavit. Counsel for the petitioner has on 6.7.2013 filed requisite copy of short reply of Respondent No.2 and the same has been included in SLP paper books. For non-filing of counter affidavit by counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the matter was listed before the Ld.Registrar Court on 19.08.2013 and lastly listed on 25.9.2013 when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:
-2- “Respondent No.1 has filed Vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 submit that counter is ready and will be filed within a week. File the Counter affidavit accordingly. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules, after expiry of the week.” It is further submitted that counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has on 8.10.2013 filed counter affidavit and the same has been included in SLP paper books. Service is complete. The matter above-mentioned is listed before Hon'ble Court with this Office Report. DATED THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JUNE, 2014. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR COPY TO: 1. Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Advocate 2. *Mr. Prem Prakash, Advocate 3. Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (* You requested to serve copy of counter affidavit filed you to Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate and file proof of service there of.) P-1
\224ITEM NO.85 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20976/2013RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 25/09/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. S.K. Dhingra,Adv. Ms. Bijoylashmi Das,Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.1 has filed Vakalatnama and counter affidavit. Respondent No.2 submit that counter is ready and will be filed within a week. File the Counter affidavit accordingly. List the matter before the Hon'ble Court as per rules, after expiry of the week.| | |(SUNIL THOMAS) ||mg | |Registrar |
ÈITEM NO.94 REGISTRAR COURT.2 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SUNIL THOMASPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20976/2013RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With prayer for interim relief and office report )Date: 19/08/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy,Adv.For Respondent(s) Ms.Bijoy Lashmi,adv. Mr. Prem Prakash,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Respondent No.2 has filed vakalatnama. Granted four weeks time for filing counter affidavit. Await return of notice of respondent No.1. List the matter on 25.09.2013.| | |(Sunil Thomas) || | |Registrar |SB
NITEM NO.17 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013 CC 10398/2013(From the judgement and order dated 24/08/2012 in AP No.397/2009, of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)RANI-ERA JV Petitioner(s) VERSUSRAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP)Date: 02/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, however, will file copy of the reply of Respondent No. 2 on the basis of which the High Court has rejected the prayer in the Arbitration Petition. | (G. SUDHAKARA RAO) | | (SHARDA KAPOOR) ||COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |