Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. As noticed above, the petitioner's stand is that clause 62.3 of the agreement between the parties provides for adjudication of all disputes through arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Managing Director of CIDCO but claims that this arbitration clause is illegal being in violation of the office memorandum dated 30 March 1989 of Government of India and Presidential directives dated 17 April 1989 and 21 August 1989 and as such does not constitute a valid arbitration agreement on which reference could be made. In other words, the arbitration clause (62.3), as it exists, has not been acceptable to the petitioner. In letter dated 11 August 1995 IRCON has expressed its inability to unilaterally effect any change in the arbitration clause without the approval of CIDCO, and CIDCO being not agreeable to the change in the arbitration clause, it could not refer the matter to Permanent Machinery of Arbitrators(PMA), as desired by the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has not addressed any communication to IRCON invoking the arbitration clause and expressing its desire to go in for arbitration under the said clause. As such, no interim injunction under Section 9 of the Act can be issued in favour of the petitioner, who, as noted, is repudiating the arbitration agreement itself.