The court determined an arbitrator's jurisdiction depends on claims being notified by the General Manager; failure to do so limits arbitration eligibility.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 11(5), (6) and (8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, `Act of 1996') with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) appoint an independent and impartial person, such as a retired judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or any High Court, as an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties;

b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. It is the case where the petitioner viz. L & T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Larsen & Toubro Limited (hereinafter referred to as "L&T"). It primarily caters to the Oil and Gas sector around the world under Offshore, Onshore, Construction Services, Modular Fabrication and Engineering Services verticals.

3. Whereas the Respondent viz. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "IOCL") is a Public Sector Undertaking, with business interests including, inter alia, refineries, pipeline transportation & marketing of petroleum products, exploration & production of crude oil & gas and marketing of natural gas and petrochemicals.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on June 11, 2012, the respondent issued a Letter of Award for Mainline works including small HDD works, Civil works, Mechanical works, TCP & Electrical works, OFC laying works and Instrumentation works for Salaya Mathura Pipeline (SMPL) De-bottlenecking Pipeline Project ("Project") to the petitioner and a formal contract (hereinafter referred to as "Contract") was executed between the parties on July 11, 2012.

5. It has been specifically pleaded that the Contract was particularly awarded to the Hydrocarbon Division of the L&T and the Contract Price was fixed for Rs.104.5 crores and the same was later reduced to Rs.103.62 crores. Subsequently, in December 2013, a Scheme of Arrangement was approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as per which the all the assets and liabilities of the Hydrocarbon Division of L&T were transferred as a going concern to the petitioner and hence, the petitioner became the successor to the Hydrocarbon Division of the L&T.

6. That the project work assigned to the petitioner included the laying of pipeline between Chainages 287 to 667 (381 km) in the State of Rajasthan and between Chainages 0 to 12 (12km) in the State of Haryana. However, the work of `Major Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD)', at various locations on the entire length was to be done by a different contractor appointed by the respondent.

7. That the scheduled date for completion of the Contract work was September 10, 2013. However, as per the petitioner, works were delayed for reasons not attributable to L&T Hydrocarbon and could only be completed on 24 February 2016.

8. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the course of the Contract, various claims were raised by L&T Hydrocarbon under and in terms of the Contract and on April 25, 2018, L&T Hydrocarbon had submitted its (revised) final bill to the respondent against the works done by it. However, it has been averred that the respondent has failed to make payment with respect to the claims raised and the final bill submitted by L&T Hydrocarbon.

9. According to the petitioner, the claim amount, totaling to Rs.72,58,48,058/- (excluding GST) is due and payable by the respondent to