Whereas, the Board of Directors of AIL vide resolution dated 15.07.2005 had authorised its officer to execute the JVA and PoA, which were so executed on 09.09.2005.
The appellant WAPCOSL , was given the responsibility to provide financial, administrative and companytractual management services for the MEA.
Thus, it was Page 5 of 27 duly numberified through these letters that in future, only those letters or companymunications which are signed or acknowledged by both the parties AIL and SSPPL shall be valid and be entertained by WAPCOSL.
This assertion Page 6 of 27 is factually incorrect.
Briefly stated, the Ministry of External Affairs for short, MEA and the appellant in the leading appeal, Water and Power Consultancy Services India Limited for short, WAPCOSL , a Public Sector Undertaking, entered into an agreement, dated 29.11.2004, for the implementation of the work on the Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and companypletion of Salma Dam Project 3x14 MW , Afghanistan, Package III Main Civil and HydroMechanical Works for short, project .
The High Court in a separate petition bearing number Arb.
Subsequent to which, a letter dated 02.08.2016 was issued by AIL addressed to WAPCOSL, informing that SDJV has started the process of dismantling the machinery and the work force from the project site with full awareness of WAPCOSL.
P. 810/2016 before the High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been asserted that the PoA dated 15.07.2005 given by AIL in its favour is still in force and forms part of the Contract Agreement dated 09.03.2006.
For that reason, it went on to observe that AIL cannot be permitted to derail the arbitration process companymenced for and on behalf of SDJV through SSPPL.
Feeling aggrieved, WAPCOSL preferred a Special Leave Petition bearing number SLP Civil 26555/2017 before this Court.
The said arbitration petition was companytested by the appellant WAPCOSL .
The High Court, therefore, allowed the Arbitration Petition and appointed a sole Arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the parties.
70/2016 under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, wherein the High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 05.09.2016, directed WAPCOSL to deposit the amount payable to SDJV with the Registrar of the High Court in order to secure the interests of both the JV entities.
P. 442/2016 , filed by AIL against SSPPL, also appointed a sole arbitrator for their AIL and SSPPL inter se disputes.
After rejection of said representation, SDJV preferred six appeals to the Technical Committee companystituted in terms of clause 2.1 of Section 02 of AoA. Five of these appeals were rejected disposed of vide report of the Technical Committee dated 28.10.2016.
470.40 Crores, on a representation made by SDJV.
In that, the PoA was executed as a follow up document alongwith JVA on 09.09.2005 itself.
In the said meeting, SDJV cited reasons which were beyond its companytrol for initiating timely companystruction of the project.
Despite signing of AoA, SDJV raised certain claims before the Engineer of WAPCOSL.
The High Court was also impressed by the fact Page 8 of 27 that SSPPL had 95 per cent shareholding in SDJV as against only 5 per cent shareholding of AIL, the other partner.
Feeling aggrieved, WAPCOSL as well as AIL have assailed the decision of the High Court by filing separate Special Leave Petition s .
Once again, there was further change by way of revised rates, after a meeting between SDJV and a HighPower Committee for short, HPC .
Notwithstanding the abovementioned letters sent by AIL, upon rejection of the claims of SDJV by the Technical Committee, on 28.10.2016, SSPPL, unilaterally, espousing claims of SDJV proceeded to invoke the arbitration process, under clause 20.6 of CoPA and also appointed a numberinee arbitrator, vide letter dated 12.11.2016.
Subsequent to this, SDJV and WAPCOSL signed a revised agreement for the rates, referred to as the Amendment of Agreement for short, AoA , dated 09.06.2015.
In the meantime, on 04.06.2016, the Dam was inaugurated Page 4 of 27 by the Honble Prime Minister of India and Honble President of Afghanistan.
A letter was sent by WAPCOSL, informing about the acceptance of revised rates of eight items and raising the total companysideration to Rs.
Further, the petition filed in the name of SDJV through SSPPL was number as per Delhi High Court Rules.
Subsequent to the execution of AoA, dispute arose between the JV partners which resulted in AIL filing a petition bearing number O.M.P. I COMM.
Further, the fact as to whether SDJV was entitled for the relief, regarding the claims raised, was a matter within the exclusive domain of the Arbitral Tribunal.
That justification found favour with the HPC for which it had recommended revised rates with regard to eight items.
M. Khanwilkar, J. Leave granted.
These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 25.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.810 of 2016, whereby the High Court allowed the Arbitration Petition purportedly filed by respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date 2019.11.14 130612 IST No.
1 Salma Dam Joint Venture, under Section 11 6 of the Reason Page 1 of 27 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the Act and appointed a sole Arbitrator.
On 21.09.2016, the Board of Directors of AIL resolved to revoke the PoA executed in favour of SSPPL and in furtherance of the same, AIL, vide letters dated 19.10.2016 and 11.11.2016, wrote to the respective Banks and also to WAPCOSL informing them about the revocation of the authority of SSPPL.
However, the High Court allowed the same vide order dated 15.03.2017 and appointed an arbitrator for WAPCOSL.
Resultantly, SSPPL filed a petition on behalf of SDJV against WAPCOSL under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration Act bearing number Arb.
