Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION  

ARBITRATION     PETITION     NO.     25     OF     2011   

M/S.FUGRO SURVEY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.               Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

RAMUNIA INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD.              Respondent(s)

O     R     D     E     R   

1. This petition has been filed under  

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation  

Act, 1996 read with paragraph 3 of the Scheme framed  

by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India under Section  

11(10) of the said Act for appointment of sole  

arbitrator.  

2. Despite service of notice, none appears on  

behalf of the respondent.

3. The petitioner and the respondent had entered  

into a Survey Contract on 8.4.2008 whereby the  

petitioner agreed to perform various survey for the

Page 2

2

respondent as per terms and conditions of payment  

prescribed under the said agreement. The survey was  

necessary for the performance of the tasks in the  

Main Contract.  

4. The petitioner was a Sub-Contractor  under  

the respondent having necessary expertise,  

capabilities and technical know-how to perform the  

works required by the Contractor i.e. the respondent  

herein, for providing adequate equipment and  

personnel for such work. The specified work which  

was required to be done by the sub-contractor is  

contained in various Articles of the aforesaid  

Survey Contract.  Article 14 of the Survey Contract,  

which provides for the mechanism for resolution of  

any dispute that may arise between the parties  

through arbitration,  reads as under:

“  Article     14   –   Arbitration/Law   

14.1 This contract shall be governed by  

the laws of the Republic of India.  

14.2 Any dispute between the parties  

arising in, under or out of this Contract,  

unless otherwise amicably settled, shall be  

resolved by arbitration in Mumbai,  India in

Page 3

3

accordance with the Rules of conciliation  

and Arbitration Act, 1996 or any subsequent  

rules or amendments thereof. The decision  

of/by the arbitrator shall be final and  

binding upon both parties.”  

5. It appears that disputes have arisen between  

the parties. It is the claim of the petitioner that  

the geographical survey was completed 100% and they  

were carrying out Soil Sampling using drop core  

which was completed to the extent of 53.8%. The  

petitioner raised Invoice No.INV-MAR-08-02/03/409  

dated 15th July, 2008 in the sum of USD 565614.98 for  

the work done and thereafter vide letter dated 24th  

July, 2008 reminded the respondent for payment but  

there was no response from the respondent.  

Subsequently, a legal notice was sent to the  

respondent on 14.2.2009 calling upon the respondent  

to make the payment of the aforesaid amount together  

with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the  

date of each invoice till the date of payment.   

6. In spite of the legal notice dated 14.2.2009,  

no payment was received by the petitioner. Hence the

Page 4

4

petitioner issued legal notice dated 8.12.2010  

invoking the arbitration clause. The petitioner also  

proposed to appoint one Mr. Pawan Aggarwal as the  

Arbitrator. The respondent, however, failed and  

neglected to confirm the appointment of the  

aforesaid Arbitrator. In fact, no reply to the  

aforesaid legal notice has been received by the  

petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner moved an  

Arbitration Petition No.118 of 2011 in the High  

Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking appointment of  

an arbitrator. When the aforesaid petition came up  

for hearing before the High Court on 5.8.2011, the  

High Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the  

arbitration petition as the petitioner would have to  

move this Court under Section 11(5) of the  

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  It was in  

these circumstances that the present arbitration  

petition has been filed before this Court.  

7. The Office Report indicates that the service  

of notice in this matter is complete. However, in  

spite of the notice having been served, none appears  

on behalf of the respondent. The averments made in  

the petition have remained un-controverted.

Page 5

5

8. In view of the above, this petition deserves  

to be allowed and accordingly the arbitration  

petition is allowed. I hereby appoint Mr. Justice  

Arvind V. Savant, former Chief Justice of the Kerala  

High Court, (residing at A/20, Marble Arch-A, 9,  

Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi-110011) as the sole  

Arbitrator.      

9. The learned arbitrator shall be at liberty to  

fix his own remuneration and any other terms and  

conditions for the arbitration as deemed fit and  

proper, at his sole discretion. The seat of the  

arbitration shall be in Mumbai.  

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to  

the learned Arbitrator so that he may enter upon  

reference as expeditiously as possible.

.....................J (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

New Delhi; September 7, 2012.