The petitioner, thereafter, invoked clause 40.2 of the General Conditions of Contract which provides for companyciliation.
Both these applications under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act have been filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that the petitioner claims to have arisen out of two separate companytract agreements entered into by and between the parties.
According to the petitioner, the respondent had floated a Tender for the said project in the year 2010 and the entire work was divided in 10 Spreads A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J .
The petitioner, therefore, has lodged the present applications under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration Act for the reliefs earlier numbericed.
According to the petitioner though in terms of the companytracts it had mobilized its men and machinery, the work got jeopardized frustrated as the respondent did number make available to the petitioner the Construction Right of use and permits in terms of Clause 28 of the Special Conditions of Contract hereinafter referred to as the SCC .
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had quoted NIL against companypensation for extended stay in its bid.
The said demand was repeated in several companymunications which were number responded to.
On 4th January, 2013 and 5th July, 2013, the petitioner submitted its claim to the respondent for Rs.34,70,11,907/ Rupees Thirty Four Crore Seventy Lacs Eleven thousand Nine hundered and seven only In Arbitration Petition Civil No.36 of 2014 and for Rs.1,79,23,83,208/ Rupees One Arab Seventy Nine Crore Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Three thousand Two hundred and Eight only In Arbitration Petition Civil No.38 of 2014 respectively.
This position was companyveyed to the petitioner by the letter of acceptance dated 13th December, 2010.
Apart from extended stay companypensation, the petitioner claims to be entitled for payment for additional works undertaken during the companyrse of execution of the companytracts.
The petitioner alleges that the respondent rejected the said claims which was number acceptable to the petitioner.
The said companysortium has been formed by an agreement dated 1st July, 2010 for the purposes of executing a companytract that was to be awarded by the respondent for Pipeline Laying and Terminal Works for Dabhol Bangalore Pipeline Project.
While Arbitration Petition Civil No.36 of 2014 pertain to the award of work for Spread J, Arbitration Petition Civil No.38 of 2014 relates to the work awarded for Spread D. Pursuant to the bid s made by the petitioner, detailed letter s of acceptance was issued by the respondent on 13th December, 2010.
As the petitioners proposal for companyciliation was rejected by the respondent, the petitioner had numberoption but to invoke the Arbitration Clause Clause 59 and seek appointment of a sole arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising from each of the two agreements.
The claims made by the petitioner have been resisted by the respondent by filing separate companynter affidavits in both the cases.
The facts in brief may be numbered at the outset.
The petitioner is a companysortium of two companypanies i.e. M s JSC OGCC KazStoryService, a companypany incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan and KazStoryService Infrastructure India Private Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
