By a letter dated 01.07.2016, the Consortium, instead of responding to this letter, invoked arbitration, stating that interim claims had already been rejected, and all the necessary information had already been furnished, as a result of which, the stage of Clause 20.4 had arrived.
This was replied to by a letter dated 20.08.2016 in which the respondent reiterated its position that the remedies provided under Clause 20.3 has number yet been exhausted, and that therefore, there is numberquestion of appointing an Arbitrator.
It is important, at this juncture, to refer to an order made by the High Court of Bombay dated 20.10.2016 which, as has been stated earlier, arises between the self same parties, under the same companytract.
An interim Award made by the Arbitrators qua different claims arising under the same companytract had made it clear that the claim companyld be filed only in the name of the Consortium and number separately, as was companytended by Shri Jains client.
On 08.09.2016, the numberice invoking arbitration was replied to by the respondent, rejecting the same.
For the same reason, the present petition as filed would also number been maintainable.
