Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The relevant facts which need to be noticed for adjudicating upon the instant petition are that in February/March 1999, the Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited)-petitioner invited tenders to carry out coal mining operations which were to be conducted through a Joint Venture Company to be created for the said purpose by the petitioner and the highest bidder. Respondent No.2-EMTA Coal Ltd. (for short, EMTA) was the highest bidder. On 21.03.2001, the petitioner and EMTA entered into a joint venture agreement through which they created respondent No.3-M/s PANEM Coal Mines Limited (for short, PANEM) to develop and extract coal from Pachwara (Central) 1 of 22 CWP-12700-2019 (O&M) [2] Coal Block. The extracted coal was to be supplied by PANEM to the petitioner to be used by it in its thermal power station(s) for generating electricity. On 30.08.2006, the petitioner and PANEM entered into a coal purchase agreement which contained the terms for the supply of coal by PANEM to the petitioner.

Thus, three agreements were entered into. Through the first one the petitioner and the highest bidder-EMTA agreed to form a joint venture for carrying out mining operations to extract coal from Pachwara (Central) Coal Block. The second agreement was the Joint Venture Agreement dated 21.03.2001 through which the petitioner and EMTA created PANEM for extracting coal to be supplied to the petitioner and the third agreement was the coal purchase agreement dated 30.08.2006 between the petitioner and PANEM through which terms were set out as to how and in what manner PANEM was to supply coal to the petitioner.

It is the admitted position that for the resolution of a dispute all the aforesaid agreements contained an arbitration clause.

EMTA raised a dispute with regard to non-payment of its dues by the petitioner. EMTA invoked the arbitration clause. By consent of the petitioner and EMTA, under the Joint Venture Agreement dated 21.03.2001, two Arbitrators were appointed, who in turn appointed a third Arbitrator and thus, a three member Tribunal came into existence before which EMTA filed its claim to which the petitioner not only filed a written statement but also its counter claim. As soon as the petitioner had filed its objections to EMTA's claim as also its counter claim, an application under Section 16 of the 1996 Act was filed by the petitioner calling upon the Tribunal to determine its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon EMTA's claim. Such application was dismissed by the Tribunal through its order dated 08.01.2017. Thereafter, the matter before the Tribunal continued during the course of which both the parties led their respective evidence. When EMTA had concluded its final arguments and the matter was listed for final arguments on 2 of 22 CWP-12700-2019 (O&M) [3] behalf of the petitioner, at that stage, in May 2019, the petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court to challenge therein the aforesaid order dated 08.01.2017 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application filed by it under Section 16 of the 1996 Act.

On 14.05.2019, a Single Judge of this Court issued notice and granted stay of further proceedings before the Tribunal. EMTA challenged the grant of interim stay through an intra-Court Appeal. The issue raised therein was primarily with regard to the maintainability of the present petition. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of EMTA's appeal and remitted the matter to this Court, to decide, in a time bound manner, the issue with regard to the maintainability of the present petition. Thereafter, EMTA filed an application before this Court seeking therein dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. On the same grounds, in the alternative, vacation of interim stay granted on 14.05.2019 was sought.