( 1 ). The petitioners have moved the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for interim relief. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company in the field of manufacturing of all types of summer and winter cloth having a turn over of more than Rs. 300. 00 crores. Petitioner No. 2 M/s Sandhya Textiles is duly constituted as institutional coordinator representing petitioner No. 1 company specifically for the tender floated by Mahanagar telephone Nigam Ltd. (for short MTNL), the respondent. Reference to the petitioner would hereinafter mean petitioner No. 1.

( 2 ). MTNL invited tenders from those who had minimum turn over of rupees three hundred crores for supply of cloth for summer and winter uniforms for Group c and d of its employees. Notice inviting tenders (NIT) was for cloth for the following five types of uniforms:- sl. NO ,. items Approximateindicative quantity (In (Rs) Per meters) mtrs. 1. Cloth for shirts 330816 70-77 (Summer ) 2. Cloth for Pants 129225 260-270 (Summer ) 3. Pants and coats 187101. 375 (woollen cloths for winter ) 4. a) Sarees with blouse 9180 sets 459. 90 (Summer) , b) Suites with Dupattas (Summer) 5. a) Sarees with Blouse 5508 sets 585. 90 (winter) b) Suites with Dupattas (winter)

( 3 ). As it was open to the participants to bid either for one or more upto all the five items, the petitioners participated only for first three items which were for gents and did not bid for items 4 and 5, the four types of ladies wear. The petitioners bid being the lowest was accepted. After the acceptance of tender, the price was further negotiated on the basis of the specification of cloth supplied earlier by the applicant to Airport authority of India (for short AAI ). Revised and finally agreed prices were as under :-

( 4 ). After the prices were finalised, MTNL placed the first purchase order No. APO/po No. AGM (MMI)STAFF uniform/2000-01/kw-II/44 dated 17/02/2001. The respondent placed second purchase order dated 1 9/04/2001 for supply of staff uniform cloth (winter), by which the following quantity was ordered :

( 5 ). The first purchase order dated 17/02/2001 was duly complied with and the MTNL received all the supplies against the same as per the specifications laid therein and made payments to the tune of rs. 5,55,01,143. 93 paise against the said supplies. There is no dispute with regard to the first purchase order. The uniform cloth, as against the second purchase order, was to be supplied in two parts i. e. 57452 metrs by 1 6/07/2001 and 134055,18 meters by 17/09/2001. This supply was re-scheduled to 22/07/2001 and 20th september,2001 respectively by MTNL, On account of delay on the part of MTNL, petitioner sought further extension which was agreed to as under : i) 30% of the ordered quantity by 30. 9. 2001. ii) Second 30% by 30. 10. 2001, and iii) balance 40% by 30. 11. 2001.

( 6 ). During the stipulated period, the petitioner supplied and delivered the cloth and some payments made by MTNL as shown in para 6 (xxvi) of the petition. It is alleged by the petitioner that as regards, Invoice No. 67 dated 18/10/2001, respondent having accepted the supplies as per the laid down specifications had prepared a cheque dated 22/10/2001 for Rs. 1,37,76,401. 00 for payment to the petitioner. The respondent despite repeated letters of the petitioner failed to handover the said cheque to the petitioner on the ground that some CBI. investigation was initiated on registration of FIR dated 10/10/2001 against some of the officers of MTNL alleging that the contract was wrongfully procured Though records of MTNL were seized by the CBI but the cheque for rs. 1,37,76,401/-, payable to the petitioner, was not seized. Supplies against Invoice No. 68 dated 1 8/10/2001 were duly received by the respondent but it failed to pay Rs. 76,71,355. 00 against the said invoice.

( 7 ). On the ground of CBI investigation, the respondent refused to further pursue the pu