Orissa High Court
M/S. Btfpl-Bla(Jv) vs The Chairman-Cum-M.D on 26 October, 2021
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18754 of 2018
(Through Hybrid Mode)
M/S. BTFPL-BLA(JV) ..... Petitioner
Mr. K. Datta, Sr. Advocate
Vs.
The Chairman-cum-M.D., ..... Opposite Parties
MCL & Ors. Mr. D. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
26.10.2021 Order No.
10.
1. Mr. Datta, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, relief sought by his client is direction for respondent to submit the disputes to arbitration.
2. By impugned letter dated 12th August, 2017, General Manager (CMC) of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited rejected request of petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator citing terms and conditions of contract under NIT-051 dated 14th March, 2009 to have no arbitration agreement.
3. Mr. Datta, refers to communication dated 7th April, 2017 made by Coal India Limited to the several coal companies, paragraph-5 in which relates to past/existing work order/contract. He relies on said paragraph to submit, in cases of contract such as in this case, there can be arbitration as his client has consented and wants the reference.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite parties and submits, there was got appointed an // 2 // Arbitrator in a similar case, under section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. His clients preferred Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court. The order of appointment was stayed. He submits, the contract does not have arbitration agreement and his client cannot be compelled to submit to a reference. He submits further, the contract in question is not an existing contract. Mr. Datta, responds by drawing attention of paragraph-5 in impugned letter, which indicates that the contract has not yet been closed.
5. It appears, under said communication dated 7th April, 2017, it is open to opposite parties to have adjudication of disputes by arbitration reference as petitioner by requesting the appointment, can be said to have consented thereto. Adjournment is granted for opposite parties to consider their position on adjudication of disputes, urged by petitioner to exist as would appear on the face of impugned letter talking about partial execution, imposition of penalty and processing of final decision on imposition of penalty. This Court expects there should not be any dispute between the parties regarding how the disputes should be adjudicated, in Court or by arbitration. A considered response is awaited.
6. List on 8th November, 2021.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant Page 2 of 2