The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the arbitration clause and jurisdiction clause in determining the Court's jurisdiction to entertain an Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

1. The applicant-Company which is involved in the business of construction as contractor was awarded a contract by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for main line laying works for 132 KM 32" dia Cross Country R-LNG and combine 1 station works for Dadri-Panipat R-LNG pipeline project as per the Work Order dated 12. 2008. The applicant has given a part of the work to the respondent being the sub-contractor under the letter of intent dated 19. 2008. By a subsequent letter of intent dated 111. 2008, the work of submerged crossing and cased crossing work was entrusted to the respondent and thereafter, a Work Order was issued on 12. 2008, as per which the work should be completed before 10.01.2009.

2(a). As per the terms, if the work is delayed beyond the time, the applicant is entitled for liquidated damages at the rate of 1% per week subject to the maximum of 5% of the contract value. The work order also provides for arbitration and it is also stated that the Courts in Chennai only will have jurisdiction. The respondent has to arrange for adequate equipments along with tools and tackles, spares and also manpower with experienced operators, Engineers and Supervisors to ensure quality work. The payment has to be made as per the measurement sheet submitted by the respondent on verification certificate by IOCL. In the running account, 10% of the amount of bills which are to be produced by the respondent will be retained by the applicant towards performance guarantee.

2(b). It is also undertaken that the applicant shall not be liable to pay all idling charges due to suspension of work. It is stated that the applicant has supplied all materials, machines and expertise of manpower for the work. On a bill raised by the respondent for a sum of Rs.14,69,385/- the sum was certified and paid, however, by mistake, it was omitted to deduct the cost of materials, machines and expertise of manpower which works out to Rs.8 lakhs. The respondent started raising bills not in conformity with the work order and in some cases, the bills were also fabricated. In spite of several requests to produce copies of wages sheets and provident fund details of employees, the same were not supplied by the respondent.

2(c).When there was an attempt to resolve the dispute, the respondent through Mr. Shahid Rana, has threatened with his henchmen to kill the officials. There was a Compliant lodged to the Inspector of Police, Meerut on 24. 2009. By letter dated 5. 2009, the applicant informed the respondent to submit necessary NOCs. failing which the work will be allotted to other persons as per clause 14 of the Work Order. The claim of the respondent in respect of works done was exorbitant and even though the total value of work is Rs.2.04 crores, the respondent raised 11 bills to a total amount of Rs.2,58,44,076/-. Some of the bills were disputed and were not certified. Even before the amount was received from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the applicant paid approximately a sum of Rs.67 lakhs to the respondent for the works. The respondent has failed to complete the works and in those circumstances, the applicant issued a letter dated 15. 2009, terminating the contract and appointing Mr. M. Sundaramurthy, Deputy General Manager of the applicant company as sole Arbitrator in terms of the contract.

2(d). The materials and instruments which were supplied by the applicant to the respondent are still in the work spot and the applicant under its contract with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has to complete the work. However, the respondent is threatening and not allowing the officials of the applicant to continue the work. The work for the public purpose by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has been completed by 90% and the project is nearing completion and the respondent is not allowing the employees of the applicant to enter into the work spot. Therefore, the applicant has filed the above Applications for the reliefs.

3. This Court, having been prima facie satis