Vide e mail dated 16.02.2010, the respondent Company sent a Request for Proposal RFP to the petitioner Company, inviting technical and companymercial proposal for their LSEL and REL Projects.
The petitioner Company has filed two petitions for the appointment of Arbitrator and its parent companypany viz.,
Second subsidiary Company of the respondent Company is Raipur Expressway Limited REL , which is also a special purpose vehicle SPV of the respondent Company and has signed a Concession Agreement with the NHAI for developing the Raipur Aurang Highway Project REL Project for widening the existing 2 lane Road to 4 Lane dual carriageway between Km 239 to Km 281 on NH 6 in the State of Chhattisgarh.
First subsidiary Company of the respondent Company is the Lucknow Sitapur Expressway Limited LSEL which is a special purpose vehicle SPV of the respondent Company and has signed a Concession Agreement with the National Highways Authority of India NHAI for developing Lucknow Sitapur Highway Project LSEL Project for widening the existing 2 Lane Road to 4 Lane dual carriageway between Km 413.200 to Km 488.270 on NH 24 in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The respondent Company, vide letter dated 14.06.2010, accepted the said proposal.
On 06.09.2012, a legal numberice was sent to the respondent Company by the IBI Group as well as by the petitioner Company for the recovery of outstanding payment for all the companytracts.
The value of the Contract was mutually finalized at Rs.
During companypletion of the projects, the respondent Company defaulted in releasing the agreed payment to the petitioner Company and the IBI Group.
Though several verbal and written companymunication were exchanged between the parties to this effect, the respondent Company companyld number release the outstanding payment.
IBI Group has also filed two petitions of the same nature.
Vide letter dated 07.06.2010, the petitioner Company had given a proposal to execute the companytract for installation, erection and companymissioning of the Toll Collection and Traffic Control Equipments at NH 24.
Since the point of companysideration is same in all these four petitions, purpose would be served if we moot the case of either of the petition and would be disposed off by this companymon judgment.
Pursuant thereto, a Contract Agreement dated 30.08.2010 was executed between the parties.
Further, on 12.06.2013, a reminder for outstanding payment was sent to the respondent Company.
53 of 2016 The petitioner Company is a multi disciplinary companypany engaged in the business of providing system integration and maintenance service for Toll and Traffic Management Systems whereas the DSC Limited, the respondent Company is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having two subsidiary companypanies.
The IBI Group and the petitioner herein filed petitions under Section 11 of the Act before the High Court being Arbitration Petition Nos.
The above petitions, under Section 11 6 read with Section 11 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act , have been filed by Signature Not Verified the petitioner Company as well as by the IBI Group for Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.04.16 151007 IST Reason appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties in companynection with the companytracts in question.
443, 448, 444 and 449 of 2014 before the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
1,55,20,700.00 in pursuance of the Contract Agreement.
On 24.04.2014, a legal numberice for invoking Arbitration Clause and appointment of Arbitrators was sent to the respondent Company and the name of Mr. Debashish Moitra, Advocate was suggested as a Sole Arbitrator, however, there was numberreply from the other side.
In total, the IBI group and the petitioner Company had entered into 6 six separate companytracts for the respective LSEL and REL Projects with the respondent Company.
K.Agrawal J. The IBI Consultancy India Private Limited the petitioner Company is the Indian subsidiary of the IBI Group based in Canada.
