M/S R K Infra and Engineering (India) Pvt Ltd v. M/S the Sandur Manganese and Iron Ore Ltd.,

JUDGMENT TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF RECONSIDERING THE FINDING THAT THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED FROM

01.07.2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY RE-EXAMINE LIMITATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISMISSAL OF ICA PROCEEDINGS ON 05.08.2014 & ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The review petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this court in Commercial Appeal No.63/2025. The said appeal ― which was filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] was dismissed.

¶2The only question raised by the review petitioner/appellant was regarding limitation. The review petitioner had claimed that an award rendered pursuant to the arbitral proceedings which were in relation to the dispute that had arisen between the parties relating to an agreement dated 20.12.2010, was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitral tribunal was constituted pursuant to an

order passed under Section 11 of the A&C Act which was beyond the period of limitation. This court had found no merit in the said contention. This court had also found that the agreement in question was terminated on 07.06.2012 and the period of limitation would commence from the said day. The arbitral proceedings had been invoked by a request for arbitration lodged with the Indian Council of Arbitration [ICA] on 01.07.2013.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the delay in filing an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act, which was filed on 13.02.2015, cannot be excluded by virtue of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Limitation Act]. This contention is bereft of any merit. There is no ground to exclude any period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The arbitral proceedings had commenced on 01.07.2013, which was within the period of limitation from the cause of action and an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act was filed on

13.02.2015, which was within the period of three years as stipulated under Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.

¶4The second contention advanced by the learned counsel is that Section 21 of the A&C Act would not be applicable after the termination of the arbitral proceedings.

¶5We had noted that the review petitioner had contested that the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration [ICA Rules] were applicable and, therefore, respondent No.1 had not continued the arbitral proceedings under the ICA Rules and had approached the court under Section 11 of the A&C Act. It is material to note that the review petitioner had expressly stated that it had agreed to refer to arbitration but not to the conduct of arbitration under the ICA Rules. However, this court found that the arbitration clause had expressly provided that the arbitration would be conducted through ICA Rules and that ICA Rules would be applicable.

¶6However, to obviate any further objection, the respondent had filed an application under Section 11 of the A&C Act and the court had allowed the same. The said decision had become final.

¶7We find that the present review petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at `25,000/-.

The costs shall be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from date.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 166 OF 2026 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL No. 63 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S R.K. INFRA AND ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 1-2-39/10 & 11, 5TH FLOOR R.K. ASOKA, NIZAMPET ROAD HYDERNAGAR, KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD - 500 085 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. BITRAGUNTA RAVIKALYAN REDDY …PETITIONER (BY SRI GANESH NAG B.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRIKANTHA RAO VEMUGANTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S THE SANDUR MANGANESE AND IRON ORE LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 9 SANDUR HOUSE, BELLARY ROAD SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 080 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE