Point of Law : The very purpose of the A & C Act is to enable a party to invoke an arbitration clause at the earliest and for the arbitration to be completed at the earliest.

ORDER :

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs :

A. To appoint the Arbitrator as contemplated under the clause 4.1 of the contract agreement dated 28.03.2018, to adjudicate the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondents in the interest of justice.

B. Any other orders may kindly be passed that the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

2. The Petitioner a Private Limited Company, being a startup enterprise engaged in the business of infrastructure, had participated in the tender floated by the Respondents and thereafter entered into a contract with the Respondent on being declared as the successful bidder.

3. The dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents is that the Petitioner having been declared successful bidder, a letter of intent having been issued and a contract entered into on 28/03/2018, within a period of fewer than two months on 18/05/2018, the Respondents had issued a notice cancelling the contract unilaterally.

4. The Petitioner earlier had approached this Court in writ petition No.114450/2019, which came to be allowed and the Petitioner was permitted to execute the contract. Thereafter the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondents on 27/05/2021 requesting permission to execute the contract.

5. However, the Respondents had, on 16/06/2021, called upon the Petitioner to show cause why the contract in question and all the subsequent action taken under the said contract should not be terminated, on account of the alleged defaults of conditions by the Petitioner. The Petitioner replied to the same on 30/06/2021,but without considering the said reply, Respondent No.2 is stated to have passed an order of termination of the contract on 15/07/2021.

6. It is in this context that the disputes have arisen and as such the Petitioner issued a notice on 17/11/2021 calling upon the Respondent to make good the damages suffered by them and called upon the Respondents to make payment of the same. No response was received for the said notice, despite Respondent No.1 having received the notice. Respondent No.2 had however refused to accept the notice and the same was returned to the sender.

7. Hence the Petitioner caused another notice dated 29/11/2021, this time invoking the arbitration clause and nominating an arbitrator on behalf of the Petitioner and seeking concurrence within a period of 30 days, failing which the Petitioner would approach this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as ‘A & C Act’, for brevity).

8. The Respondent has replied to the same on 03/02/2022, contending that, in terms of Clause 38 of the General Conditions of Contract (‘GCC’ for short), there is an agreed methodology of resolution of the disputes and it is this methodology which is required to be adopted and since the Petitioner has not gone through the entire methodology, the appointment of an Arbitrator would not arise and as such, rejected the request of the Petitioner. It is in that background that the Petitioner is before this court.

9. Sri. S.S. Beturmath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that :

9.1. the entire object of the Respondents has been to protract the claim of the Petitioner.

9.2. Within two months of the agreement being entered into, the agreement was terminated, even though the Petitioner was the successful bidder and LOI was issued and the contract executed.

9.3. The contract drafted by the Respondent is completely one-sided.

9.4. The Petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for the commencement of arbitration, let alone resolution of disputes.

9.5. The conduct of the Respondent does not inspire confidence and as such there is no purpose which would be served by going through the procedural requirements of GCC Clause No.38, which would only be a waste of time and as such, the Petitioner and the Respondents should be sent to arbitration at the earliest without any delay.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the