AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 790
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itrator and to refer the disputes to him, which have arisen between the applicant and the respondent during the course of execution of Services Agreement dated July 15, 2006. 2. The relevant facts, which emerge from the record of the case, are as under: The applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Its registered office is situated at Chennai. The respondent is a company having its registered office at London. The applicant and the respondent entered into a Services Agreement dated July 15, 2006. Under the said agreement, the applicant was to provide services to the respondent as set out in schedule 2 to the said agreement. The respondent had agreed to make payment of 15,500 per month to the applicant and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issues involved in the matter. The case of the applicant is that the respondent did not give reply to the notice dated February 15, 2007, nor concurred in the appointment of Mr. Justice Arvind Sawant (Retd.) as sole arbitrator nor appointed its arbitrator. The applicant has claimed that it is entitled to recover a sum of 252,911-76 from the respondent for the services rendered. Under the circumstances the applicant has filed the instant application and claimed relief to which reference is made earlier. 4. On receipt of notice from this Court, the respondent has filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit it is mentioned by the respondent that the Services Agreement dated July 15, 2006 was signed on July 31, 2006 and August 1, 2006 by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. 6. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the documents forming part of the application. 7. By now it is well settled that exercise of power under Section 11(6) of the Act is judicial power. After the decision of this Court in SBP and Company v. Patel Engineering Ltd. AIR2006SC450 , the Designated Judge has to consider the claim of both the parties to the matter and pass a reasoned order. It is also well settled that existence of arbitration agreement is a condition precedent before exercise of powers under Section 11(6) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be done at the beginning of each calendar month and the amount due would be payable monthly. Clause 9 of the Services Agreement dated July 15, 2006 confers right upon the applicant to terminate the agreement if payment for services rendered is not received by the applicant within a period of fifteen days from the expiry of the previous month. Clause 10 of the said agreement provides for consequences which would ensue on termination of the agreement, whereas clause 19 enables the aggrieved party to approach arbitrator for resolution of the disputes. It is relevant to note that by letter dated February 15, 2007 the applicant had terminated the Services Agreement and appointed its sole arbitrator as well as called upon the respondent to concu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SHA) as per drafts given in Schedule A and B. It is the specific case of the respondent that the Tripartite Share Purchase Agreement dated July 15, 2006, of which Schedules A and B were intrinsic and inseparable parts, stood automatically terminated on July 31, 2006 owing to non-completion of the material conditions as postulated in clause 3.4 of the agreement, without any further obligations, liability or claim between the parties under the agreement. As the Tripartite Share Purchase Agreement automatically stood terminated due to non- completion of the conditions mentioned in clause 3.4 of the agreement, there was no obligation on the applicant to enter into the Services Agreement, draft of which was annexed to the Tripartite Share P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, 2006". It is well settled legal position that an agreement to enter into an agreement is not enforceable nor does it confer any right upon the parties. The agreement in terms of the said Letter of Intent was to be signed on or before September 15, 2006. It is not the case of the respondent that any agreement was executed between the parties on or before September 15, 2006. The respondent has not stated in its counter reply that the agreement, which was to be executed by September 15, 2006, was in fact executed. During the course of hearing of the instant application it was fairly conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no such agreement was executed between the parties at all. Hence, as the agreement contemplated by the ....