MAHINDRA SUSTEN PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NHPC LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment disposes of Arb. P. 217/2020 and OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020.

(2.) Arb. P. 217/2020 seeks reference of the disputes, between the petitioner and respondent, to arbitration, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"). OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 seeks certain pre-arbitral interim reliefs. Mr. Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted, at the outset, that, if Arb. P. 217/2020 were to be allowed, and the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent referred to arbitration as prayed therein, he would have no objection to OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 being also referred for adjudication to the arbitrator, treating it as an application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. As such, the necessity of adjudicating, on merits, OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 would arise only if Arb. P. 217/2020 were not to be allowed.

(3.) Mr. Tejas Karia, learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed Arb. P. 217/2020. The ground for opposition would become clearer from the recital that follows. Suffice it to state, at this stage, that I am of the opinion that the opposition of Mr. Tejas Karia is without substance and that, therefore, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent ought to be referred to arbitration. As such, in view of the submission made by Mr. Viswanathan, noted supra, OMP (I) (Comm) 162/2020 would also be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the 1996 Act. The necessity of this Court adjudicating on the said petition, thereby, stands obviated.