1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) by the Petitioner, Mihir Buildcon Pvt. Limited against the Respondent, Ajnara Infrastructure (P) Limited, seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between them.

2. It is stated that the Respondent issued a Work Order dated 21st September, 2012 to the Petitioner for construction work to be carried out in towers ‘I, J, K, L, M and N’ in a group housing residential project, ‘Ajnara Homes’ in Sector 16B, Noida (Uttar Pradesh). In terms of the Work Order, 60% of the monthly RA bills were to be released by the Respondent within seven days of submission. The balance payment was to be released after the bills were checked within 15 days. The project was to be completed within 24 months. The defect liability period for the project of 12 months. Annexure A to the Work Order comprises the general terms and conditions. Clause 34 thereof contains the arbitration clause which provides that in the event an amicable settlement is not possible between the parties in connection with the disputes arising out of the contract, it should be referred to the sole arbitration of the person having adequate technical knowledge of the trade. The venue of the arbitration was to be in Delhi.

3. According to the Petitioner, soon after receipt of the work order it began procuring the equipment from various suppliers and hiring labour. However, according to it, the Respondent did not facilitate the progress of work. A reference has been made to the letter dated 7th January, 2013 whereby the Petitioner requested the Respondent that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs be released as payments were to be made to the labour, staff and suppliers. The disputes as regards payment of the running bills appears to have remained unresolved.

4. On 24th March, 2015 the Respondent wrote a letter to the Petitioner terminating the Work Order. The letter listed out the grievances including the slow progress of work which had pushed the delivery of the said towers of the project "very much behind the agreed schedule." The Respondent asked the Petitioner to submit its final bill after preparing the same together with their site staff/Project-in-Charge within seven days of the date of the said letter. This was to be treated as the final bill after which the Petitioner “shall have no further claim.” It was stated that the left over work would be got completed by the Respondent at the Petitioner’s sole cost and liability in terms of Clause No. 3 of the Terms and Conditions mentioned in Annexure 1 of the Work Order.

5. By a letter dated 27th March, 2015, the Petitioner replied to the above termination notice terming it as "an illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and untenable action." Inter alia the Respondent was asked to make the following payments:

(i) 25th R/A bill amounting to Rs. 2.17 crores;

(ii) various claims for losses and damages amounting to approximately Rs. 3 crores;

(iii) the final bill which was under preparation and was approximately Rs. 3 crores.

6. Further, the Petitioner demanded interest @ 18% per annum on the aforementioned payments from the date they fell due till the date of payment. According to the Petitioner, as of that date, a sum of over Rs. 10 crores as reflected in its final bill dated 1st April, 2015 was owed by the Respondent to the Petitioner.

7. It appears that certain negotiations thereafter took place between the parties. Although in the petition there is no mention of letter dated 23rd May, 2015 written by the Petitioner to the Respondent, the said letter was brought to the attention to this Court by the Respondent at the hearing on 13th January, 2016. The order passed by this Court on that date reads as under:

“Reply is already on record. Learned counsel for the Respondent has furnished the copy of the letter dated 23rd May 2015 written by the Petitioner to the Respondent prior to the date of the MoU. The contents of the same are read as under:

“Thi