The Court docket delivered the ruling whereas setting apart a Bombay Excessive Court docket order appointing an arbitrator on a plea filed by BCL Safe Premises Pvt Ltd.
The matter involved a dispute associated to a contract awarded by Hindustan Petroleum Company (HPCL) for a Tank Truck Locking System to AGC Networks Ltd.
The tender situations had a particular clause stating that the contractor shall not be entitled to sublet, switch or assign the work beneath any contract with out prior written consent. Nonetheless, the AGC is acknowledged to have given the work to BCL.
In 2018, BCL claimed that it was entitled to 94 per cent of the contract worth and demanded fee from HPCL, which denied any legal responsibility, asserting that it had no privity of contract with BCL.
BCL then initiated civil fits and arbitration beneath MSME proceedings towards AGC, ultimately reaching a settlement in 2023 beneath which receivables from HPCL, if obtained, could be assigned to BCL.
Following the settlement, BCL issued a discover invoking HPCL’s arbitration clause and claimed round ₹3 crore. HPCL rejected the declare and subsequently additionally opposed BCL’s Part 11 petition earlier than the Bombay Excessive Court docket, citing lack of privity, a contractual bar on task with out consent, and a time-bar.
Nonetheless, the Excessive Court docket appointed an arbitrator and directed the tribunal to first resolve arbitrability within the matter. HPCL then challenged the choice earlier than the Supreme Court docket.
Leave a Reply