Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. In terms of Section 11(6A) of the A&C Act, the scope of examination under Section 11 of the A&C Act is limited to the existence of the arbitration agreement. Admittedly, NTPC and TCMPL have not signed any agreement However, TCMPL claims that the parties are bound by the Project Agreement. It claims that in terms of Clause 6.4.4 of the ITB, the Project Agreement was deemed to have been executed between the parties on the issuance of the LoA by NTPC.

4. Mr Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Clauses of the ITB (Clauses 3.1.5; 3.1.26; 3.1.27; 3.1.37; 3.1.45; 3.1.52; 4.1; 6.4.4; and 12.3 of the ITB). He also referred to the draft of the Project Agreement annexed with the 'Bidding Documents' and submitted that the draft of the Project Agreement clearly indicated that NTPC, various Consortium Members as well as the Mine Operator, are parties to the Project Agreement. He submitted that TCMPL was the Mine Operator; and, NTPC had also initially issued a Form-III certificate to TCMPL in order to secure a labour license for execution of the work regarding the development and operation of the Talaipalli Coal Block, in terms of the Project Agreement. He contended that in view of the ITB, the Project Agreement was deemed to have been entered into between TCMPL and NTPC and, it includes an Arbitration Clause. Thus, an Arbitration Agreement, in terms of Clause 23.3 of the Project Agreement, exists between the parties.

5. Next, Mr Tripathi referred to the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in OMP(T)(COMM) 101/2021 captioned "NTPC Limited v. Talaipalli Coal Mining Pvt. Ltd and Anr.". He submitted that the said petition was filed by NTPC under Section 14 of the A&C Act. Thus, it is implicit that NTPC had accepted the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. He submitted that a petition for terminating the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal would arise only in cases where an Arbitration Agreement is recognized and accepted. He also submitted that the contents of the said order make it amply clear that NTPC had not disputed the existence of an Arbitration Agreement. It had, on the contrary, sought that the disputes be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted, for adjudication of the disputes between the consortium members and NTPC.

30. It is apparent that NTPC did not contend that the Arbitration Agreement did not exist between the parties. On the contrary, it requested that the parties be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, as constituted, pursuant to the Consortium Members invoking the Arbitration Agreement.

31. It is necessary to note that no such submission to the effect that the parties be referred to the said Arbitral Tribunal (as constituted, pursuant to the consortium members invoking the Arbitration Agreement) was advanced on behalf of NTPC and therefore this Court has refrained from considering the same.