EPC Contractor, in turn, executed a Construction Agreement dated March 14, 2008 with the respondent herein M s. Techtrans Construction India Pvt.
29519 of 2015 the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act wherein it had categorically stated that the appellant would be companystrained to initiate legal proceedings against the respondent for recovery of amount by approaching the companypetent civil companyrt.
Some disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent in companynection with the execution of the said work and the appellant vide its letter dated March 25, 2013 raised certain claims against the respondent.
2439 of 2018 Page 5 of 18 arising out of SLP C No.
Insofar as the appellants petition under Section 11 of the Act is companycerned, it was companytested by the respondent taking the objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of absence of any agreement.
Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had also referred to certain companymunications addressed by it to the respondent before invoking legal remedy wherein it has stated that the parties had agreed for settlement of disputes in accordance with clause 45.3.
The appellant also filed Original Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the file of Principal Civil Appeal No.
It may be clarified at this juncture that Agreement dated July 29, Civil Appeal No.
The High Court has vide impugned orders dated September 18, 2015 dismissed the said petition of the appellant upholding the companytention of the respondent that there is numberarbitration agreement between the parties and, therefore, remedy under the Act for appointment of arbitrator or companystitution of Arbitral Tribunal is number available.
In the meantime, on June 30, 2014, the Principal Judge, Karur allowed the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Act, but left open the issue of existence of arbitration agreement.
These very arguments were raised before the High Court.
The respondent, on the other hand, had drawn attention of the High Court to paragraph 23 of Civil Appeal No.
The High Court, thus, opined that from the companymunications only, it companyld number be said that parties had agreed for arbitration and, in fact, the appellant in his petition filed under Section 9 of the Act had professed ignorance of the agreement between the respondent and the employer.
As it had gone to the extent of making an averment to the effect that the petitioner is totally kept in dark about the terms and companyditions of the agreement till number.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
National Highway Authority of India NHAI had entered into agreement dated July 19, 2007 hereinafter referred to as the Concession Agreement whereby it had awarded a companytract to M s. T.K. Toll Road Pvt.
Notice in this petition was issued by the High Court.
This petition was companytested by the respondent who in its reply denied all the allegations raised by the appellant and also submitted that since there was numberarbitration agreement between the parties, the petition under Section 9 of the Act was number maintainable.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Concessionaire for undertaking, inter alia, the design, NIDHI AHUJA Date 2018.02.23 165504 IST Reason engineering, financing, procurement, companystruction, operation and Civil Appeal No.
Pursuant thereto, the respondent floated a tender for sub contracting their work in which the appellant also submitted its bid and was ultimately awarded the said work by the respondent vide agreement dated July 29, 2009.
Clause 8 of that agreement permitted the respondent to sub contract the structural work.
Ltd. to execute the works as per terms and companyditions entailed in that agreement.
While this was pending, the appellant moved application under Section 11 3 and 5 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator in the High Court of Judicature at Madras on January 28, 2014.
