Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

73. The petitioner and the respondent executed a joint memo on 21st March, 2018. A perusal of the said joint memo indicates that there was a reference to eight arbitration invocation notices dated 21st September, 2017 under eight tenders awarded to the joint venture. Paragraph 3 of the joint memo provided that in view of the identity of issues under those eight arbitration agreements, to save costs and to avoid ppn 43 carbpl-238.19(j).doc possibility of contrary findings/views on identical issues, the petitioner and the respondent in the said application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act agreed and mutually consented to have all the disputes forming the subject matter of eight agreements, be treated as single composite reference. The said agreement shall be treated as arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

88. The said suit was filed in the year 2013 much prior to the respondent even invoking arbitration agreement. The respondent did not disclose about pending dispute between the respondent and the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited in the notice invoking arbitration agreement, in the application filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, in the statement of claim filed by the respondent before the learned arbitrator or in the subsequent proceedings. When these facts were bought on record by the petitioner herein, Mr.Khambata, learned senior counsel for the respondent did not dispute about the pendency of the suit filed by his client and the counter claim filed by the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited pending in this Court which ppn 53 carbpl-238.19(j).doc were filed much prior to the date of invocation of the arbitration agreement by the respondent. The said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited has not been impleaded as a party claimant along with the respondent or even as a proforma respondent in the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner was thus not required to prove whether there was a separate claim made by the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited upon the petitioner arising out of the same contract. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent relied upon few documents from the said proceedings.

105. Insofar as the statement now made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that his client is ready and willing to issue an indemnity bond in favour of the petitioner is concerned, in my view since it is an admitted position that the suit filed by the respondent against the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited and the counter claim filed by the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited against the respondent arising out of the said contract is pending before this Court since prior to the date of invocation of the arbitration agreement by the respondent, I am inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Rustomjee, ppn 65 carbpl-238.19(j).doc learned senior counsel for the petitioner that even if any such indemnity bond is issued by the respondent at this stage, the petitioner would not be relieved of its liabilities, if any. In my view, if the claims made by the respondent in the arbitral proceedings without the consent of the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited are rejected on its own merit, the said Electropath Services (India) Private Limited may make a claim against the petitioner arising under the same contract. In that event, the petitioner will have to file a civil suit for enforcement of such indemnity bond against the respondent.