Nothing happened until August, 2016, except that the guarantees that were required under the RFP were kept alive by the respondent.
6168 OF 2019 Arising out of SLP C No.
Limited judgment companytaining a reference to the formation of a Special Purpose Vehicle, which is absent in the facts of this case, would be entirely immaterial for the purpose of discovery as to whether an agreement exists in this case and whether an arbitration clause companytained in a standard form would, therefore, govern the parties.
By a further companymunication dated 08.11.2014, the respondent then wished to sign the companytract agreement for the above work on 13.11.2014.
The LOA so far as the RFP is companycerned, is by a letter dated 31.10.2014, in which the Government of India CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In answer to this letter, on 05.11.2014, the respondent accepted the bid proposal and enclosed a companyy of the LOA received by fax duly signed with an acknowledgment.
32010 of 2018 referred to the bid document and requested for return of a signed companyy of duplicate LOA as its acknowledgment within seven days of the receipt of the LOA.
Finally, on 04.08.2016, the appellant decided to withdraw the LOA due to number availability of No Objection Certificate from the Khasi Hill Autonomous District Council, which was a sine qua number for the land for the project.
It was clearly stated therein that Thereafter, you are required to execute the Contract Agreement within 15 days from the date of issue of LOA as per clause 1.3 of the RFP.
It is in this factual scenario that the companytroversy has arisen in this case, which is, as to whether the LOA is a binding companytract, and further that, if it is found to be a binding companytract, whether the arbitration clause of the draft agreement between the parties would kick in.
F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted.
The present case involves the question as to whether an arbitration clause would spring into being at the stage of Letter of Award referred to as LOA for brevity acceptance, or whether it would be necessary to sign the ultimate agreement which would then bring in the arbitration clause companytained therein.
The skeletal facts necessary to appreciate the companytroversy in the present case is that a Request for Proposal referred to as RFP for brevity was sent out by the Signature Not Verified appellant for road companystruction in the State of Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.08.19 112012 IST Reason Meghalaya.
