Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate for the respondents submits that the claim is barred by limitation. The notice invoking arbitration was not proper and the clause relied upon by the petitioner, was not a valid arbitration clause.

7. Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the respondent relies on the following decisions:

i. B And T AG vs. Ministry of Defence, reported in (2024) 5 SCC 358.

ii. BGM and M-RPL-JMCT (JV), reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 486.

19. In Powertech World Wide Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the clause which provided that any dispute arising out of the agreement which could not be settled amicably, shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was a valid arbitration clause.

20. Similar view was taken by a learned Co-ordinate Bench in Bankat Garodia vs. Adityo Poddar (AP-COM/17/2023, IA No.GA- COM/2/2024).

25. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find Clause 76 to be a valid arbitration clause.

26. To answer Mr. Roy's query as to what would be the purpose behind incorporation of the said clause and that the clause could not have been incorporated without a particular purpose, this Court is of the view that, the parties may have kept an option to enter into an agreement on some further date open, to refer disputes to arbitration and in that event, the Arbitration Act would apply.

27. With regard to the further submission of Mr. Roy that Clause 73.3, which is quoted below, is an arbitration clause, this Court is of the view that the same cannot constitute a valid arbitration clause in view of the fact that the clause provides that in the event any money is retained or withheld by the Chief Engineer of NPCC, the same shall not be released until there is a mutual settlement or determination by an arbitration clause or by a decision of the competent court.