STATE OF H.P. Vs. BMD PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) By way of instant petitions, filed under sub-sec. (6) of S.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, (hereinafter, 'Act'), prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute in respect of Pre-Implementation Agreement (hereinafter, 'PIA') dtd. 26/5/2011 entered into between the respondent and the petitioner.

(3.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts, as emerge from the record, are that on 26/5/2011, a PIA (Annexure P-1) was signed between the petitioner and the respondent for execution of Malana-III Hydro Electric Project(30 MW) in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent deposited upfront premium of Rs.6.00 Crore with the petitioner in terms of the PIA (Annexure P-1). Respondent, vide letter dtd. 26/8/2013, submitted a Detailed Project Report (hereinafter, 'DPR') with the petitioner as per terms of the PIA within the stipulated period but since the project was found technically and financially unviable, respondent in terms of Clause 12 of the PIA sought refund of upfront premium paid by it vide communication dtd. 21/1/2019, however, the petitioner on 3/10/2019 (Annexure P-2) i.e. nine months after the date of request for refund made by petitioner, terminated and cancelled the PIA, as a consequence of which upfront premium of Rs.6.00 Crore deposited by respondent came to be forfeited.