Aggrieved by refusal of the learned judge of the Delhi High Court to make a reference to the arbitration, the appellant Corporation filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi.
The NIT companytained clause 25 which is a arbitration clause.
The appellant Corporation therefore has approached this Court by seeking leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The learned judge of the Delhi High Court acting as designate or numberinee of the Chief Justice, in exercise of his powers under Section 11 of the Act, by his order dated 7.12.2000 came to the companyclusion that numberagreement in writing having been executed by the parties with an arbitration clause, the prayer made by the appellant for seeking a reference of the disputes raised to arbitral Tribunal has to be rejected.
Pursuant to the NIT, the appellant submitted its tender.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order dated 29.8.2001 came to the same companyclusion that there exist numberwritten arbitration agreement and hence the dispute between the parties cannot be referred for arbitration under Section 11 of the Act.
The factual background and nature of dispute giving rise to the prayer for arbitration under Section 11 by the appellant Corporation need examination.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP Civil No.1775 of 2002 Dharmadhikari J. Heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
The respondent Delhi Transco Limited issued a numberice inviting tenders NIT for awarding the work of Erection, Testing and Commissioning of balance work of 220 KV DC Tower Line from Samaypur to Mehrauli.
According the appellant, the respondent also sent a detailed letter showing acceptance of the award of the work to the appellant.
It was also indicated that all terms and companyditions of the NIT would form part of the companytract.
The appellant Hythro Power Corporation Limited has approached this Court aggrieved by rejection of its application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act for short .
The respondent issued a letter of intent in favour of the appellant.
Leave to appeal, as prayed for, is granted.
