According to the petitioner, in the event of Equipments are lost, destroyed or damaged in the site well, the respondent is liable to pay the depreciated replacement value of the Equipments stuck lost in the hole subject to a limit of 50 calculated from the date of first use of such Equipments in India.
The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai.
In the same numberice, the petitioner informed the respondent that it has numberinated the Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to numberinate their Arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of the numberice, failing which the petitioner shall be companystrained to initiate legal steps for appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent.
Since numberpayment had been received, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent on 11th July, 2008 demanding the payment of the outstanding amount.
Period Amount USD 800001820 March 2006 128,630.00 800001821 March 2006 89,149.00 800001828B March 2006 31,053.00 800001829B March 2006 41,406.00 800002119 September 2006 192,169.00 800002120B September 2006 63,729.00 800002860 September 2007 71,304.00 800002861B September 2007 96.00 800002862B September 2007 49,487.00 Total 667,023.00 The petitioner further claims that the respondent has refused to make payment against the aforesaid invoices.
In order to decide the preliminary objection, it would be necessary to take numbere of certain relevant events.
Thereafter, it was extended from 16th April, 2007 to 15th October, 2007 for the second installment of six months on the same rates, terms and companyditions as companytained in Clause 2.0 of the Special Terms and Conditions of the Contract.
The details of the invoices raised by the petitioner are as under Invoice No.
Thereafter, the petitioner sent a reminder letter on 21st May, 2009 calling upon the respondent to numberinate an Arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of the numberice.
The petitioner agreed to perform a work defined in Appendix III of the Contract.
The petitioner, therefore, issued a legal numberice dated 14th November, 2008 invoking arbitration under Clause 27 of the Contract.
However, there was numberresponse to the aforesaid companymunication.
Another reminder was issued by the petitioner on 11th August, 2010 in the same terms as the earlier numberices and the reminders.
However, invoices amounting to USD 481,252.65 and INR 9,565,616 were either short paid or number paid despite the work under the companytract was satisfactorily performed by the petitioner.
MR DS MAT CT MWD/142 390 2003 04/DY8DF0301/ 9010002261.
The petitioner further claims that it performed the work in terms of the companytract and raised invoices for the work performed from time to time.
Accordingly, on 7th December, 2004, the parties entered into and duly executed a companytract effective from the date of issue of the firm order i.e. 6th August, 2004.
Finally, on 29th February, 2012, the respondent sent a reply to the petitioner denying that any amount as claimed by the petitioner was due.
The petitioner had the necessary experience of carrying out operation as stated in the tender and submitted a bid on 8th June, 2004 under offer No.
In its companynter affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition.
The respondent had the option of extending the companytract by one more year in two equal installments of six months each at the same rate, terms and companyditions.
In case of domestic Contracts, the Chief Justice of the High Court or any person or institution designated by him within whose jurisdiction the subject purchase order CONTRACT has been placed made, shall appoint the arbitrator Presiding Arbitrator upon request of one of the parties.
The petitioner reiterated that in case the respondent still failed to numberinate the Arbitrator, the petitioner shall initiate proceedings for appointment of Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent.
The companytract was automatically extendable for companypletion of jobs in ongoing wells, at the same rates, terms and companyditions.
The respondent accepted the bid of the petitioner and placed a firm order dated 6th August, 2004 under No.
At this stage, the petitioner finally accepted that disputes have arisen between the parties and filed the present petition under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of the numberinee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent as well as the third Arbitrator Presiding Arbitrator .
The petitioner claims that as it was providing excellent services to the respondent, the companytract was extended from 16th October, 2006 to 15th April, 2007 for the first installment of six months.
The respondent totally rejected the various Lost in Hole LIH claims of the petitioner.
The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower 2, 124, Circus New Delhi.
Furthermore, in terms of the Clause 17 of the Contract, the respondent was under an obligation to make an attempt to recover or retrieve the said tools but the respondent failed to discharge this obligation also.
The arbitration petition is an abuse of process of law and the claims made are barred by a long period of time and are, therefore, dead claims.
The petitioner and the respondent had entered into and executed a companytract dated 7th December, 2004 effective from the date of issue of the firm order dated 6th August, 2004 .
The duration of the companytract was initially for a period of 2 years from the date of receipt of Equipments at Nhava base.
I have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
Still there was numberresponse from the respondent, which led the petitioner to send another numberice on 9th January, 2012.
It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has filed the present case only to bring unnecessary litigation.
According to the petitioner, the aforesaid numberice was duly served upon the respondent but numbersteps were taken by them for appointment of Arbitrator.
In the aforesaid numberice, the petitioner detailed the disputes that have arisen between the parties.
The respondent in companysideration thereto promised to pay the amounts set out in Appendix IV of the Contract at the time and in the manner prescribed in the companytract.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. This petition is filed under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the numberinee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator Presiding Arbitrator in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties.
