IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the arbitration application was not premature, and a case was made for the appointment of an arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.

JUDGMENT

SUREPALLI NANDA, J. - The Petitioner vide Application dtd. 8/1/2021 addressed to the Executive Director Engineer Projects India Limited, SRO, Chennai requested for payment of pending payments and compensation for additional cost suffered in the project of construction of Phase-I works comprising Research Lab with R & D Office, Hostel Block including Guest House, Security Lodge, Animal Farms, Animal House including associated works for National Institute of Animal Biotechnology, Hyderabad. The Respondent herein replied to the said letter dt. 8/1/2021 vide POC/PMD/726/02/438, dt. 27/1/2021 stating that the subject work was completed and the amount towards final bill, except the amount of GST (towards anti-profiteering) had been cleared by HSCC, EPI and in turn EPI also had released the due payments to M/s. Bhrunda Infra Private Limited i.e., the Petitioner herein and that therefore the Petitioner herein was not entitled for any extra claims other than GST amount payable if any for which submission of anti-profiteering statement is pending till date. Vide letter dtd. 10/2/2021, the Petitioner herein again addressed to the Respondent i.e., General Manager, Engineer Projects (India) Ltd., NIAB site Hyderabad to reconsider their decision communicated vide letter dt.27/1/2021 and for release of additional claims.

2. When the Petitioner herein did not receive any response to its letter dtd. 10/2/2021, the Petitioner vide Ref.No.BIPL/EPIL/ HSCC/NIAB/CLAIM/2021-22/04, dtd. 25/5/2021, invoked Clause for dispute resolution as provided under the Agreement Clause 57 of the Additional Conditions of the contract r/w EPI GCC Clause No.76 which provides for in the first instance reference for amicable settlement of disputes/claims and accordingly the Petitioner herein referred the claims already brought out on record vide Petitioner's claim letter dtd. 8/1/2021 for amicable settlements of claims as provided under the contract giving details of the list of the claims required to be settled through amicable settlement.

3. The Petitioner herein received reply dtd. 28/5/2021 in response to Petitioner's letter dtd. 25/5/2021 invoking Clause for Dispute Resolution under Clause 57 ACC for amicable settlement, requesting the Petitioner to arrange to depute Petitioner's Engineer for preparing and submitting the claims with all details to HSCC (I) Ltd., at the earliest. The Petitioner herein vide detailed reply dt. 30/9/2021 addressed to the Respondent Executive Director, Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., SRO, Chennai and also Hyderabad, referring to Clause 76 of the Memorandum of Agreement explained that the said clause categorically provides for resolution of disputes or differences arising out of contract agreement dt. 20/2/2015 between the parties and to consider Petitioner's claim and further that Clause 76.1 provides that before resorting to Arbitration the parties if they so agree may explore the possibility of conciliation as per the provisions of Part-III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and when such conciliation has failed the party shall adopt for Arbitration and since no amicable settlement has reached as per Petitioner's request vide letter dtd. 22/5/2021 having been aggrieved the Petitioner further called upon the Respondent for conciliation as per Clause 57 of ACC and 76 of GCC for settlement of claims and when the Petitioner did not receive any reply to Petitioner's letter dt.30/9/2021, the Petitioner vide letter dt. 8/11/2021 addressed to the Respondent invoked the Arbitration pursuant to Clause 57 of ACC and Clause 76 of GCC for Settlement of Claims put-forth by the Petitioner's Claim letter dtd. 8/1/2021 and 10/2/2021. In response to Petitioner's letter dtd. 8/11/2021, the Petitioner received reply from the Respondent Authority requesting the Petitioner herein to agree to conciliate the disputes and in this regard suggested 3 names of which one could be appointed as a Conciliator and the Petitioner herein replied