An arbitration agreement can be inferred from the parties' conduct, and objections regarding jurisdiction must adhere to the terms outlined in the agreement.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. Having heard Mr. Udit N. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harsh Agrawal, respondent appearing as party-in-person and perused the record, pertinent is to note that the present petition has been filed by the National Dairy Development Board, an institute of national importance, constituted by an Act of Parliament namely the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner – Board can sue and be sued in its own name. The petitioner has been appointed as the Nodal Agency for implementation of a scheme namely Rashtriya Gokul Mission launched by Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India for development and conservation of indigenous bovine breeds. Financial assistance in the nature of subsidy/grant in aid is to be provided to the beneficiaries which are desirous of establishing and operating Breed Multiplication Farms to the extent of 50% of the capital cost subject to a maximum of INR 2 crore per applicant.

2. The respondent namely Mr. Harsh Agrawal had applied for subsidy of INR 200 Lakhs under the Breed Multiplication Farms Scheme (in short referred as “BMF Scheme”), on the designated portal for establishing a Breed Multiplication Farm at Momanthal, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The subsidy to the tune of INR 200 Lakhs was sanctioned in favour of the respondent by the Ministry vide order dated 01.12.2022.

3. In furtherance of the sanction, an agreement for implementation of Breed Multiplication Farm Programme under the Rashtriya Gokul Mission was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 02.02.2023. A copy of the said agreement is appended at Annexure B to the petition.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner was to release the subsidy in 4 (four) tranches of INR 50 Lakhs each. The first tranche was to be released on the approval of the project, subject to the release of funds by the lending bank of the respondent. The release of subsequent tranches would depend on the actual physical progress of the project, as certified by the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, an amount of INR 50 Lakhs was released in the account of the respondent on 22.03.2023. On 31.03.2023, the first physical progress inspection of the project site was conducted by the officials deputed by the petitioner. In the said report, the respondent had assured that full infrastructure for the project with the capacity of 200 animals would be ready by September, 2023. A copy of the inspection report drawn on 31.03.2023 is appended at Annexure ‘D’ to this petition.

6. Another physical verification inspection was carried out by the officials deputed by the petitioner on 25.09.2023. However, it was noticed that there was virtually no progress in the project, inasmuch as, even the civil work for construction of shed had not commenced. The respondent had not even procured any livestock required for the project. During the course of visit, the respondent indicated that he would require a further period of 12 months, i.e. till September, 2024 to complete the infrastructure for the project. Subsequent thereto, another inspection of the project site was made on 13.02.2024. During the course of th