PRISM CEMENT LIMITED Vs. DELTA CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act'), the applicant has prayed to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute which has arisen between the parties in pursuance of the contract, Annexure A-1.

(2.) IN nutshell, it has been contended, in the application that to manufacture the cement, limestone is used as raw material and for that purpose, the applicant-company has been granted mining leases in the areas surrounding its plant for mining of limestone. It has been put forth in the application that for breaking limestone and hard rock, the applicant had entered into a contract with non-applicant vide its order dated 16-08-2001 (Annexure A-1 ). Under this contract the non-applicant agreed to deploy Indico make rock breaker duly mounted on DEML make excavator in the mine of the applicant. Under Clause 10. 9 of the contract, the non-applicant agreed that after commissioning Mega Rock Breaker at the premises of the applicant the non-applicant shall not remove the machines from the mines of the applicant without clearance in writing of the applicant until the non-applicant delivers Nine lac. In Clause 13 of the contract, there is an arbitration clause, according to which, in case of dispute regarding terms and conditions of the work order it shall be referred to whole time Director of the applicant and the decision of the Director shall be final and binding on both the parties.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the applicant, after commissioning Mega Rock Breaker at the premises of the applicant the non-applicant has breached the contract and has given the authority to M/s. L and T Finance to remove the machines. As such a dispute between the parties has arisen and a Civil Suit was filed (Civil Suit No. 28-A/03 before the District Court, Satna) for declaration and injunction, mainly against L and T Finance. However, that suit was withdrawn and another suit has been filed, which is pending in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Satna. In that suit the plaintiff-applicant has sought relief for declaration and injunction that the applicant is the owner of the machines, in question, as well as for injunction.