(1.) This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" only) was filed by the petitioner on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the tender document dated 9.11.1995. Clause 104 of the said tender document contained an arbitration clause according to which in case of any dispute or difference between the parties touching or concerning the work or the execution or maintenance thereof under the contract or the rights touching or concerning the work or the execution thereof or to the rights or liabilities disputes or differences between the parties arising out of the contract in question, the decision of the Engineer Incharge shall be final and binding According to the petitioner the respondent did not make payment under the contract and as such the petitioner issued a notice dated 2.11 2001 invoking the arbitration clause but vide a reply dated 21 11 2001 the respondent refused to appoint arbitrator and raised illogical and absurd grounds to resist the claim of the petitioner Hence the petition for appointment of Arbitrator
(2.) The respondent filed a reply to the petition raising preliminary objections that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the subject matter is less than 20 lakhs, that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties that the petitioner is not a legal entity that there is no cause of action against the respondent. It is stated that the tender was granted to a partnership firm M/s Amarnath Charanji Lal & Co which was an unregistered firm and as such the petitioner has no right to sue the respondent The agreement as well as arbitration clause are denied and it is stated that the tender was issued to a partnership firm and not to the petitioner. The dues as claimed by the petitioner are also controverted.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone through the records of the case.