The Appellant for certain reasons was unable to lift the booked quantity of companyl.
2 was brought to our numberice, which companytains Standard Terms and Conditions at the end.
Respondent No.
Any interpretation of this Clause will be subject to clarification by CIL, which will be deemed as firm and final.
Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme companytains an arbitration clause which reads as under 11.12 In the event of any dispute, Bidder Buyer is necessarily required to represent in writing to the General Manager Sales and Marketing of the companycerned Coal Company, who would deal with the same in a period of 1 month from such representation.
The Appellant served a Notice dated 21.03.2016 invoking the arbitration Clause 11.12 under the 2007 Scheme.
Respondent No.
Hence, the arbitration clause companyld number be incorporated by reference.
11 of 2016.
The Appellant was therefore companystrained to file an Application u S. 11 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, for appointment of an independent arbitrator.
Clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions state that the sale orders would be governed by the Guidelines, Circulars, Notices, and Instructions issued by Coal India Ltd., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. etc.
Thereafter, if required the matter be determined by the DirectorIn Charge of Marketing of the companycerned Coal Company.
We have heard learned Counsels Dr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Mr. B. B. Pradhan, Mr. Susanta Kr.
Sale orders were issued in favour of the Appellant, pursuant to which he deposited the Earnest Money Deposit hereinafter referred to as EDM and the companyl value as per Clause 2.5 and 5.2 of the 2007 Scheme respectively.
The place of arbitration and numberination of arbitrator be varied appropriately in view of the Coal Company involved .
It was held that even though the 2007 Scheme companytains an arbitration clause, numbere of the individual sale orders make reference to the applicability of terms and companyditions of the 2007 Scheme to the sale orders.
The learned Single Judge vide impugned Order dated 21/18.05.2018 rejected the Application on the ground that the disputes relate to different transactions entered into between the parties, under the 2007 Scheme.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal.
1 companysidered this to be a breach of the Terms and Conditions of the 2007 Scheme, and forfeited the EMD deposited by the Appellant under Clause 9.2 of the 2007 Scheme.
As per Clause 7.2 of the 2007 Scheme, a period of 45 days was allowed to the Appellant from the date of issue of the delivery order, to lift the companyl.
Muduti, and Mr. M. A. Aleem Majid for the Appellants and Mr. Anupam Lal Das, Mr. Anirudh Singh and Mr. Krishanu Barua for the Respondents and perused the documents on record.
1 issued the 2007 Scheme, whereby companyl distribution would be companyducted through eAuction, with a view to provide access to companyl for buyers, who were number able to source companyl through the available institutional mechanism.
A companyy of a Sale Order issued by Respondent No.
The arbitrator shall be appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director, CIL upon written request in this behalf.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The award rendered by the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.
The arbitration shall be companyducted at Kolkata at a place to be numberified by CIL.
All disputes arising out of this scheme or in relation thereto in any form whatsoever shall be dealt exclusively by way of arbitration in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
From 2012 to 2015, the Appellant, being a registered buyer as per the Terms and Conditions of the 2007 Scheme, participated in the eAuction for purchase of companyl for several sale orders issued under the 2007 Scheme.
The Appellant filed an Application u S. 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that had arisen between the Petitioner and Respondent No.
The Respondents failed to appoint an arbitrator as per Clause 11.12 of the 2007 Scheme.
This system would provide an equal opportunity to purchase companyl through a singlewindow service to all intending buyers, and facilitate companyntry wide access to booking companyl online for all sections of companyl buyers, through a simple, transparent system.
As a companysequence, disputes arose between the parties.
Clause 7 is set out hereinbelow for ready reference The sale order will be governed by guidelines circulars office orders numberices instructions, relevant law etc.
The present Civil Appeal arises out of an Order dated 21/18.05.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, in Arbitration Application No.
The Appellant was declared successful with respect to various companyl orders.
issued from time to time by Coal India Ltd., Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., State Govts.,
The sale orders did number companytain an arbitration clause.
The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, is as under 2.1.
