Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner Company- GTI Infotel Private Limited in the present petition challenges the following:

(i) Order dated 15th May, 2017 directing the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

(ii) Arbitral Proceedings (iii) Arbitral Award dated 2nd June, 2018.

3. The brief background of the present petition is that the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) titled as ‘Bidder MoU’ on 24th October, 2014 to bid for tenders floated by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The said MoU is stated to be effective for a period of 6 years from the date of execution. The case of the Petitioner, is that there was no arbitration clause in the ‘Bidder MoU’.

4. An application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) was filed by the Respondent in which the following averment was made by the Respondent:

“19. The Arbitration Agreement between the parties was completed by way of the above said mails dated

07.03.2016, 09.03.2016 and 28.04.2016, by which the Respondent offered the Petitioner to settle all the disputes by way of an Arbitration and the Petitioner accepted the said offer of the Respondent. The parties therefore, mutually agreed to settle their disputes by way of an Arbitration.”

5. In the said arbitration petition being ARB.P. 207/2017 titled ‘ ML Infomap Private Limited v. GTI Infotel Private Limited ’ the following order dated 15th May, 2017 was passed by the ld. Single Judge.

“1. This petition is filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking appointment of sole arbitrator to refer all the disputes and differences between the parties for adjudication.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent placed a purchase order on 24.03.2015 for Geo Database Creation for Route Mapping and Round Trip Road Distance Determination and verification in the State of Maharashtra and Goa. On 26.03.2015 an agreement took place between the parties. On 23.02.2016, the respondent is said to have terminated the agreement. The petitioner relies upon an e-mail dated 07.03.2016 received from the respondent whereby the respondent offered that the matter can be settled by mutual conciliation or arbitration. However as per the reply of the petitioner dated 09.03.2016, the petitioner agreed for arbitration as their last option. Reliance is also placed on a notice dated 06.09.2016 invoking the arbitration proceedings where certain names of arbitrators were also proposed. The respondent replied to the notice stating that at this stage, they do not agree for appointment of a formal arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

3. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of service whereby the respondent are served. None has appeared for the respondent.

4. There exists an arbitration agreement between the parties as evidenced from the exchange of mail by the parties. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The parties are referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre. The said Centre may nominate an arbitrator from its panel to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitration shall be held under the aegis of the said Centre.

5. The petition stands disposed o£”

6. Mr. Debasish Moitra, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the entire basis of the invocation of the alleged arbitration agreement and the application under Section 11 of the Act was founded on fraudulent representations made by the Respondent, inasmuch as the letter of invocation categorically in effect admitted that there was no arbitration clause. But the arbitration agreement was derived on the basis of certain emails dated 7th March, 2016 and 28th April, 2016. He relies upon paragraph 22 of the arbitration notice, which read as under:

“