Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.9 BSNL by its letter dated 14 th September 2012, addressed to the Member Secretary of the Council recorded that it has received the Notice dated 11 th July 2012 from the Council, calling for conciliation in respect of the purported disputes raised by PIPL and inviting BSNL for conciliation under Section 62 of the Act.

BSNL, in its said letter further recorded that all the accounts between BSNL and PIPL have been settled and therefore the invitation for conciliation proceedings is rejected and the conciliation proceedings stands terminated. BSNL also recorded that if PIPL is of the view that any further amount is recoverable from BSNL, it would be open for PIPL to apply to the Chief Managing Director of BSNL for appointment of an Arbitrator under the said Agreements.

KPPNair 19 arbp-990

13. The Council upon receipt of the said Application dated 28 th May 2012 from PIPL, by its letter dated 11 th July 2012 informed BSNL that the said reference has been filed before it by PIPL and that BSNL should file its reply to the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. BSNL by its letter dated 14 th September 2012, rejected the invitation for conciliation proceedings and informed the Council that the conciliation proceedings stand forthwith terminated. The Council fixed a meeting on 3rd November 2012 which was attended by the representatives of BSNL as well as PIPL. On that day the Council gave 4 weeks time to the Parties to attempt an amicable settlement of their disputes. BSNL once again by its letter dated 22 nd January 2013, informed the Council that it is rejecting the invitation for conciliation and also forwarded its Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16 th January 2013, to the Council inter alia recording that BSNL had on 3 rd November 2012 informed the Council that BSNL is not submitting to the jurisdiction of the Council, which fact was not recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 3rd November 2012.

16. On 18th January 2014, the Council recorded that the representative of BSNL raised the issue of jurisdiction qua the Council and submitted a copy of the Judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Faridabad Meta Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

vs. Mr. Anurag Deepak, Sole Arbitrator. This Judgment was obviously cited by BSNL in support of its submission that the Council has no jurisdiction to proceed with the Arbitration and not in support of the argument that the Council had no jurisdiction to hold the conciliation proceedings. The Council decided to hear the matter on 1st February 2014. From the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 st February 2014 (Page 120 of the Petition) it appears that arguments were once again advanced by the Advocates for the Parties with regard to the jurisdiction of the Council to proceed with the Arbitration, and the Council accepted the argument KPPNair 21 arbp-990 advanced by the Advocate for PIPL and came to the conclusion that the conciliation proceedings have come to an end and the arbitration proceedings will start before the Council, and that the Council itself will work as the Arbitral Tribunal. Since BSNL insisted that the Council had no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration proceedings, the Council having already decided that the conciliation proceedings had concluded, and the Council would now proceed with the arbitration proceedings, in the meeting held on 15 th February 2014 gave an opportunity to BSNL to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum.

(2) Conciliation proceedings shall commence when the other party accepts in writing the invitation to conciliate.

(3) If the other party rejects the invitation, there will be no conciliation proceedings.

(4) If the party initiating conciliation does not receive a reply within thirty days from the date on which he sends the invitation, or within such other period of time as specified in the invitation, he may elect to treat this as a rejection of the invitation to conciliate and if he so elects, he shall inform in writing the other party accordingly."