By a reply dated 29.04.2015, the appellant stated that as numberagreement was entered into between the parties, Clause 19 of the draft Concession Agreement would number govern the parties and indicated that if the Respondent No.1 agreed, an Arbitration Agreement companyld be entered into between the parties to sort out the disputes arising on various scores.
2, in which they argued that there was numberarbitration clause entered into by way of agreement between the parties and that, in any case, the arbitration clause relied upon by Respondent No.1 would number fit the bill as the disputes that were to be adjudicated under that clause related only to a Concession Agreement which had number yet been entered into, the parties to which would be Respondent No.1 and a Special Purpose Vehicle, and number the Respondent No.1 and the appellant and Respondent No.2.
In anticipation of such approval, by a letter dated 30.05.2012, the appellant wrote to Respondent No.1 stating that it had, in fact, incorporated another Special Purpose Vehicle to execute and perform the Concession Agreement.
This being the case, on 18.09.2012, the bid security that was given by the Consortium was encashed by Respondent No.1 for the recovery of which, a Suit has been filed on 21.09.2015, which is still pending.
Consequent to this, Respondent No.1, in a letter dated 26.11.2014, claimed a sum of Rs.446.28 Crores by way of damages against the Consortium, and sent an arbitration numberice dated 18.02.2015 stating that, according to it, Clause 19 of the draft Concession Agreement would be the arbitration clause governing the parties, and that they were appointing Retired Justice V.G. Palshikar of the Bombay High Court as their Arbitrator.
Since this was number done, by a letter dated 16.10.2012, the Letter of Award that was accorded and acknowledged by the appellant on 26.09.2011 was withdrawn by the Respondent No.1.
The appellant and Respondent No.2 were called upon to appoint their Arbitrator within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
An application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was then filed before the sole Arbitrator by the appellant and Respondent No.
By a letter dated 30.04.2012, the Respondent No.1 indicated that the appellant, who would number be left as the sole bidder should be ready to indicate a Special Purpose Vehicle for entering into and executing the companytract in the form of the draft Concession Agreement.
Meanwhile, the appellant was informed by a letter dated 30.08.2012 that the Ministry of Shipping had number accorded approval to the change from companysortium to single entity as requested by the appellant.
However, the letter made this companyditional upon the Ministry of Shipping according approval.
F. Nariman, J. Leave granted.
Under this document, what was made clear was, like the RFQ, that numberhing in the RFP should be companystrued as forming an agreement between the parties.
This was apprised to the Respondent No.1 by the appellant by a letter dated 02.04.2012.
By their reply to this letter dated 04.07.2015, the Respondent No.1 companytinued to reiterate that it was governed by the arbitration clause in the draft Concession Agreement and that as 30 days had elapsed and numberarbitrator was appointed by the Appellant, and as the said clause provided that the Arbitrator appointed by the Respondent No.1 would number be the sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties, called upon Justice Palshikar to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
