The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of arbitration mechanisms in relevant agreements renders a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not maintainable.

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) which came up for hearing on urgent basis during vacations. At that stage, while issuing notice, as a protem measure, respondent no.8 was directed to maintain status quo as of that date as regards funds, if any, received pursuant to settlement with the National Highways Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as NHAI). The settlement was, according to the petitioner, arrived at in August / September 2014. It was made clear that the interim order will operate till today i.e., 17.11.2014.

2. At the hearing held today, respondent no.8 was represented by Mr. Balaji Subramanium. The learned counsel informed the court that as directed, a reply had been filed and a copy had been despatched to the counsel for the petitioner at the address given in the captioned petition. The reply alongwith proof of service, which is the courier receipt, has been placed on record.

2.1 In so far as respondent no. 9 was concerned, it was also represented by counsel.

2.2 The report of the Registry did show that service qua respondent nos. 1, 5, 6, 8 to 11 through ordinary post is awaited. As regards respondent nos.2, 3, 4 to 7 was concerned, no steps were taken on behalf of the petitioners to have the notices collected which were to be sent by speed post. Notably, no steps were taken by the petitioners to collect notices which were to be served by dasti, courier, e-mail and/ or fax vis-a-vis respondent nos.1 to 8 and 11. As indicated above, counsels have entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.8 and 9. Counsels were also present in court on behalf of the said respondent. In so far as respondent no.11 is concerned, while a vakalatnama was filed, there was no counsel present in court on its behalf.

2.3 I must record when the matter was called out, for a considerable period of nearly half an hour, if not more, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. The counsel for respondent no.8, Mr. Subramanium, pressed for a hearing in view of the fact that the interim order granted by this court on 20.10.2014 was gravely affecting the interest of his client.

2.4 It is in these circumstances that proceedings were continued. Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the petitioner joined the proceedings and thereafter, made his submissions again for a considerable period of time. At one stage, Mr. Khosla sought adjournment in the proceedings on the ground that he had not been served with a copy of the reply filed by respondent no.8. Mr. Subramanium in response submitted that even though service been effected on the counsel for the petitioner contrary to what was stated in court, he was willing to argue the matter based on the petition and document placed on the record by the petitioners, without relying upon the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.8.

2.5 I must only note with concern the assertion of Mr. Khosla, that, he had not received a copy of the reply of respondent no.8, to say the least, appears to be inaccurate. In this day and time, the tracking reports of courier are available on the internet and a visit to the site would show that delivery was effected on Mr. Khosla as far back as on 13.11.2014. In any event, in so far as this court is concerned, respondent no.8’s reply was filed well within the time allotted by the court, which is 05.11.2014.

2.6 Be that it may, since Mr. Khosla has made an issue with regard to the receipt of reply and the given stand taken by the counsel for respondent no.8 that he was willing to argue based on the records as filed by the petitioners, I intend not to refer to the reply of respondent no.8, at all.

2.7 In so far as the other respondents are concerned (except respondent nos.1 & 2), the non-completion of service qua them is of no consequence as even according to the petitioners, the said respondents are not party to any arbitration agreement. This is clear upon perusal of