On 09.11.2011, the appellant herein has accepted the offer tender submitted by the first respondent herein and issued the work order to the said respondent.
Pending suit, interim injunction sought for is rejected by the Learned Trial Judge i.e Senior Civil Judge, Gurgaon.
Further, when the appellant company asked the respondent SIE to select an arbitrator from a panel of three names sent by it, the respondent SIE, vide letter dated 23.07.2015, informed the appellant that, as much A. S.L.P. C No.5610/17 as, there is numberbinding companytract that came into existence between the parties, the disputes cannot be resolved by the arbitrator.
The appellant Company, a Government of India Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by enterprise, has issued a tender numberice on 05.05.2011, ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.08.23 171217 IST inviting tenders for companystruction of Ash Pond IV in Reason A. S.L.P. C No.5610/17 District Angul of Odisha State.
Further, vide letter dated 02.12.2011, the respondent SIE informed the appellant that the work order is number acceptable to them.
Hence this appeal by way of Special Leave.
Subsequently, when the first respondent herein was number companying forward to participate in the kick off A. S.L.P. C No.5610/17 meeting and instead addressed a letter dated 02.12.2011, vide letter dated 30.01.2012, the appellant company informed the respondent SIE that the companytract work will be carried out, through some other agency, at the risk and companyt of the respondent SIE.
The appellant herein, having regard to terms and companyditions of companytract, invoked the arbitration clause, by proceeding dated 02.09.2015 and appointed the second respondent Shri C.R. Pradhan, who was the Former Chairman CMD of the Company, as an arbitrator.
On receipt of such numberice issued by the arbitrator, the first respondent herein approached the Civil Court and filed Civil Suit No.2610 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gurgaon, seeking relief of declaration that the appointment of second respondent, as a sole arbitrator, is null and void.
In response to the letter dated 21.11.2011, the first respondent SIE herein vide letter dated 21.11.2011, expressed his inability to execute the work, unless certain specifications are changed revised.
The learned arbitrator initiated the proceeding by issuing numberice dated 07.09.2015, asking the appellant, as well as the first respondent to attend the preliminary meeting on 09.10.2015 at Bhubaneswar.
Further, relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the arbitrator, from proceeding with arbitration proceedings.
Further by letter dated 06.02.2015, the appellant company has informed the first respondent SIE that it suffered a financial loss of Rs.4,86,61,440/ Rupees Four Crore Eighty Six Lakh Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred and Forty Only .
2610 of 2015, on the file of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurgaon, Haryana, aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2016, passed in Civil Revision No.2471 of 2016 OM by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh.
The respondent SIE was directed to deposit the said amount otherwise the appellant will be forced to invoke Arbitration Clause as per Clause 22 of NIT and Clause 87 of the General Conditions of Contract.
When the appellant herein has questioned such order by way of Civil Revision No.
In the said letter dated 21.11.2011, the first respondent SIE herein has agreed that the appellant Company has accepted the offer made by it.
2471 of 2016, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the same is dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2016.
The Appellate Court i.e the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated 25.01.2016, allowed the appeal and granted the injunction, restraining the second respondent arbitrator from proceeding further, pursuant to numberice dated 07.09.2015.
Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is filed by the first defendant National Aluminum Company Limited NALCO , a Government of India Enterprise, in pending Civil Suit No.
Then, the first respondent SIE has disputed the claim made by the appellant, on the ground that there is numberbinding companytract, that came into existence between the parties, as such, the demand is illegal and unjustified.
As numberone on behalf of first respondent attended the meeting proposed on 19.11.2011, the appellant again issued a letter dated 21.11.2011, requesting the first respondent once again to companye for a kick off meeting.
By a letter dated 18.11.2011, the appellant addressed the first respondent to attend a kick off meeting on 19.11.2011.
A. S.L.P. C No.5610/17 Against the order of the Trial Court, refusing to grant injunction orders, the first respondent approached the District Court.
A letter dated 28.02.2015 was companymunicated to that effect, to the appellant.
