MOTT MACDONALD PRIVATE LIMITED, DR. R.G. THADANI MARG, WORLI, MUMBAI Vs. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this petition filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking that an Arbitrator be appointed to arbitrate the dispute between the parties.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent have entered into a contract agreement as at Annexure-A to the petition regarding which the petitioner claims that certain dispute had arisen and as such the resolution of dispute is to be made in terms of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 34 of the said agreement. In the petition, correspondence exchanged between parties at an earlier point after the dispute arose with regard to the finalisation of the terms and mutually acceptable solution is also referred to by the petitioner. The ultimate notice issued by the respondent to terminate the contract is also produced and in that regard, it is contended that in view of the resolution of disputes that is required to be done in terms thereof, a notice was issued seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. Since the respondent did not respond, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Respondent on being notified has appeared and filed their objections. Apart from contending that the need for appointment of an Arbitrator does not arise, specific reference is made to Clause 34 of the agreement which provides for settlement of disputes where under it is to be conciliated and only thereafter arbitration is provided. It is therefore contended that unless the procedure contemplated to exhaust the remedy of conciliation between the parties is followed, the petitioner cannot seek appointment of an Arbitrator. In that view, it is contended that the instant petition is not maintainable in law and therefore the same is liable to be rejected.