Union of India and Another v. Hariom Project Pvt Ltd

Serial No. 03 Supplementary List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG

MC(Arb. P.) No. 4 of 2025

Date of Decision: 27.03.2025

1.Union of India, Ministry of Defence, represented by its Secretary, South Block, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi

2.Military Engineering Services, represented by the Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone, Spread Eagle Falls, Shillong - 793011

:::Applicants

-Vs-

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd., B-301, Behind Sangath Silver Apartment, Motera, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 380005

:::Opposite Party

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Ms. R. Fancon, Adv. vice

Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI.

For the Respondent/Opp. Party(s): Mr. S. Sanjanwala, Adv. with

Mr. R. Pahsyntiew, Adv.

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication in press:

Oral:

¶1This is an application for clarification/modification of the order dated

06.03.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 2024 (Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India).

¶2It is submitted by Ms. R. Fancon, learned counsel vice Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI for the applicants that the Opposite Party had filed an Arbitration Petition being No. 1 of 2024, for the appointment of an Arbitrator, for adjudication of their contractual disputes. In the course of hearing, she submits that the applicants had placed a list of a panel of arbitrators of the Ministry of Defence before this Court, and had agreed to the appointment of one Shri. Sorabh Mathur, a retired Joint Director General, MES, who was on the panel of arbitrators. However, she submits the sole arbitrator after entering into reference on 12.08.2024, has raised an arbitration fee bill of Rs.21,16,225/- claiming fees in terms of Schedule – 4 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and not in terms of the approved fee structure as per Ministry of Defence letter No. 13600/Arb/Gen/E8/340/2020/DMA (W-II) dated 25.11.2020.

¶3It is further submitted that when an Arbitrator is appointed from the panel of the Ministry of Defence, the arbitration fee payable would be as per the fee structure prescribed by the Ministry vide letter dated 25.11.2020. In the order of this Court dated 06.03.2024, she submits, the aspect with regard to payment of arbitral fee as per the approved fee structure has not been mentioned, which has therefore necessitated the filing of the instant application for clarification. She therefore prays that appropriate orders be passed, modifying or clarifying the order dated 06.03.2024, by mentioning that since the sole Arbitrator had been appointed from the Ministry of Defence panel of Arbitrators dated 07.02.2022, the arbitration fee payable would be as per fee structure prescribed by the Ministry of Defence.

¶4Mr. S. Sajanwala, appearing for the respondent/Opposite Party (Petitioner in the main case) has submitted that as the Arbitrator was appointed under orders of this Court, appropriate orders may be passed by this Court in the instant application.

¶5On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and also in view of the fact that in identical matters, orders have been passed clarifying as to the entitlement of fees of the Arbitrator, this application is disposed of by modifying and clarifying the order dated 06.03.2024, to the extent that the

sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the approved fee structure contained in the Ministry of Defence letter No. 13600/Arb/Gen/E8/340/2020/DMA (W-II) dated 25.11.2020.

¶6The application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya

27.03.2025 "D.Thabah-PS"

Date: 2025.03.27 17:06:26 IST