TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kage for Simhadri Super Thermal Power Project Stage II (2 X 500 MS) at NTPC Simhadri, Visakhapatnam" (hereafter the 'Contract Agreement'). 4. In terms of the Contract Agreement, SPML had furnished Performance Bank Guarantees and Advance Bank Guarantee of a total amount of Rs. 14,96,89,136/- to secure NTPC. The details of the said Bank Guarantees are set out as below: Nature of BG Bank Guarantee No. Opening Date of BG Bank Guarantee Amount Final Validity Period Advance 0040ILG002609 11.08.2009 Rs.1,91,99,725 19.05.2019 PBG 0040ILG0009 01.07.2009 Rs.2,26,31,532 18.06.2019 PBG 0040ILG001209 01.07.2009 Rs.8,23,63,368 18.06.2019 Advance 0040ILG001309 01.07.2009 Rs.2,54,94,501 18.06.2019 5. The Performance and Advance Bank Guarantees as set out above are hereafter referred to as the Bank Guarantees. 6. SPML claims that the execution of the project was hampered for reasons attributable to NTPC. Nonetheless, SPML completed the project on 18.12.2015 and accordingly, was granted a completion certificate. It is SPML's case that even after issuance of the completion certificate, NTPC failed and neglected to release the Bank Guarantees. 7. NTPC on 10.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e alive. 11. On 23.07.2019, SPML issued a notice under Clause 6.2.1 of the GCC to commence arbitration as NTPC had failed to meet its claims as set out in its notice dated 12.06.2019. SPML nominated Justice (Retd.) Dr Satish Chandra, a former judge of the High Court of Indore, to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and requested NTPC to nominate another arbitrator. NTPC responded to the said notice by a letter dated 29.08.2019 calling upon SPML to amicably settle the dispute or in the alternative, to constitute an Expert Settlement Council (ESC). On 07.09.2019, SPML in reply to the letter dated 29.08.2019 stated that the mechanism as suggested by NTPC is not agreeable as the same is beyond the contractual provisions. SPML once again requested NTPC to nominate an arbitrator so that an Arbitral Tribunal be constituted to adjudicate the disputes. Vide letter dated 30.09.2019, NTPC requested SPML to resolve the disputes through an Expert Settlement Council (ESC) as the notice to commence arbitration is untenable; however, assured SPML that in case the disputes cannot be resolved through an ESC, the same could nonetheless be referred for arbitration. 12. On 14.10.2019, SPML in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... NTPC responded to the said letter dated 22.07.2020 disputing SPML's claim of Rs. 72,01,53,899/-. Submissions 19. Mr. Raman Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute as to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement (Arbitration Clause) and the same would be binding amongst the parties. He submitted that pre-arbitral steps as envisaged under the GCC of the Contract Agreement has been resorted to before taking recourse to arbitration. He submitted that in terms of the letter dated 12.06.2019, the petitioner had requested the respondent to appoint an Adjudicator as per Clause 6.1.3. of the GCC read with Clause 3 of the SCC. He submitted that as per the minutes of the meeting dated 08.11.2019 it is evident that both parties had come together and thus, the first pre-arbitral step of 'mutual consultation' has been taken recourse to. He also submitted that the settlement of dispute scheme as envisaged under the Contract Agreement does not contemplate any recourse to conciliation and thus, cannot be settled by the Expert Settlement Council (ESC) as sought by the respondent. He submitted that the same is untenable as first,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... However, SPML chose not to refer the disputes to the adjudicator rather, to execute a Settlement Agreement instead. He submitted that the arbitration clause must be construed strictly and it is essential for the parties to observe all pre-arbitral steps prior to the invocation of the arbitration clause. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Oriental Company Insurance Ltd. v. M/s. Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt. Ltd., C.A. 2268 of 2018 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors., C.A. 8146 of 2018, in support of his submission. 23. He submitted that SPML completed the project on 18.01.2015 and thereafter, a completion certificate was duly awarded to SPML. A final payment amounting to Rs. 1,40,00,000/- was also released in favour of SPML, which was followed by a No-Demand Certificate released by SPML towards NTPC. He submitted that NTPC had no ill intention to withhold the Bank Guarantees and the same were being withheld due to an outstanding amount recoverable from SPML which was arising out of several allied contractual obligations between the parties. He contended that subsequently a Settlement Agreement da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parties cannot be referred to arbitration. According to NTPC, the Arbitration Agreement as embodied in the Arbitration Clause under the Contract Agreement has ceased to exist. The said contention is disputed by SPML. According to SPML, the Settlement Agreement is invalid as it has been induced by economic coercion and undue influence. It is contended on behalf of SPML that there is no dispute that the parties had entered into a Contract Agreement and therefore, an Agreement to refer the disputes arising in relation thereto exists between the parties. The dispute whether the Contract Agreement stands discharged by the Settlement Agreement is required to be adjudicated by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted in terms of the Arbitration Clause as contained in the Contract Agreement. 26. The Arbitration Clause in the Contract Agreement reads as under:- "6.2 Arbitrator 6.2.1 If either the Employer or the Contractor is dissatisfied with the Adjudicator's decision, or if the Adjudicator fails to give a decision within twenty eight (28) days of a dispute being referred to it, then either the Employer or the Contractor may, within fifty six (56) days of such reference, give notice to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in The Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta and Bros. (supra) and contended that the present case was not one of discharge of the Contract Agreement by accord and satisfaction simpliciter, but by novation in terms of the Settlement Agreement. 28. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the Settlement Agreement. In terms of Clause 1 of the Settlement Agreement, SPML had undertaken to withdraw its writ petition - Writ Petition No. 7213/2019 filed in this Court - immediately on execution of the Settlement Agreement on receipt of the Bank Guarantees. In terms of Clause 2 of the Settlement Agreement, SPML undertook not to raise any claims of any nature against NTPC in respect of the Contract Agreement or initiate any proceedings in that regard. In terms of Clause 3, SPML confirmed that it had received the entire payment relating to the Contract Agreement and the same stood closed. Clause 4 of the Settlement Agreement records that, in view of the commitments made by SPML, NTPC agreed to release the Bank Guarantees which had been withheld earlier. NTPC also agreed not to initiate any contempt proceedings against SPML for not keeping the Bank Guarantee alive. In terms....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with it. As the contract subsists for certain purposes, the arbitration clause operates in respect of these purposes. 32. Sarkar J, entered a dissenting opinion. He emphasized that the Arbitration Clause in a contract stands apart from the rest of the contract. He held that the dispute whether the obligations under a Contract have been discharged by accord and satisfaction is also a dispute relating to obligations under a contract and have to be settled by arbitration if it falls within the scope of the Arbitration Clause. The relevant extract of his opinion is as under: "31. In my view therefore an accord and satisfaction does not destroy the arbitration clause. An examination of what has been called the accord and satisfaction in this case shows this clearly. From what I have earlier said about the terms of the settlement of February 22, 1949, it is manifest that it settled the disputes between the parties concerning the breach of the contract for kettles camp and its consequences. All that it said was that the contract had been broken causing damage and the claim to the damages was to be satisfied "in terms of the settlement". It did not purport to annihilate the contract or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Limited v. ANS Constructions Limited and Anr.: (2018) 3 SCC 373, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the decision of the High Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A & C Act. In that case, the Supreme Court held that there was full and final settlement of claims and therefore, no arbitrable dispute existed. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: "31. Admittedly, no-dues certificate was submitted by the contractee company on 21-9-2012 and on their request completion certificate was issued by the appellant contractor. The contractee, after a gap of one month, that is, on 24-10-2012, withdrew the no-dues certificate on the grounds of coercion and duress and the claim for losses incurred during execution of the contract site was made vide letter dated 12-1-2013 i.e. after a gap of 3½ (three-and-a-half) months whereas the final bill was settled on 10-10-2012. When the contractee accepted the final payment in full and final satisfaction of all its claims, there is no point in raising the claim for losses incurred during the execution of the contract at a belated stage which creates an iota of doubt as to w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Court concluded as under: "21. In the instant case, prima facie no dispute subsisted after the discharge voucher being signed by the respondent without any demur or protest and claim being finally settled with accord and satisfaction and after 11 weeks of the settlement of claim a letter was sent on 27th July, 2016 for the first time raising a voice in the form of protest that the discharge voucher was signed under undue influence and coercion with no supportive prima facie evidence being placed on record in absence thereof, it must follow that the claim had been settled with accord and satisfaction leaving no arbitral dispute subsisting under the agreement to be referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication." 36. The decision in Antique Art Exports (supra) was rendered after introduction of sub-section (6A) in section 11 of the A & C Act. The said decision was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of Garware Wall Ropes Limited v. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Limited (2019) 9 SCC 209, wherein the Supreme Court had referred to the Law Commission Repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09) 1 SCC 267: (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 117. This position continued till the amendment brought about in 2015. After the amendment, all that the courts need to see is whether an arbitration agreement exists--nothing more, nothing less. The legislative policy and purpose is essentially to minimise the Court's intervention at the stage of appointing the arbitrator and this intention as incorporated in Section 11(6-A) ought to be respected."] 11. We, therefore, overrule the judgment in Antique Art Exports (P) Ltd. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antique Art Exports (P) Ltd., (2019) 5 SCC 362 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 785] as not having laid down the correct law but dismiss this appeal for the reason given in para 3 above." 38. In SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 618, the Supreme Court had indicated the matters required to be decided by the Chief Justice/his designate in an application under Section 11 of the A & C Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: "38. It is true that finality under Section 11(7) of the Act is attached only to a decision of the Chief Justice on a matter entrusted by sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own jurisdiction in the sense whether the party making the motion has approached the right High Court. He has to decide whether there is an arbitration agreement, as defined in the Act and whether the person who has made the request before him, is a party to such an agreement. It is necessary to indicate that he can also decide the question whether the claim was a dead one; or a long-barred claim that was sought to be resurrected and whether the parties have concluded the transaction by recording satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations or by receiving the final payment without objection. It may not be possible at that stage, to decide whether a live claim made, is one which comes within the purview of the arbitration clause. It will be appropriate to leave that question to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal on taking evidence, along with the merits of the claims involved in the arbitration. The Chief Justice has to decide whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. For the purpose of taking a decision on these aspects, the Chief Justice can either proceed on the basis of affidavits and the documents p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Supreme Court had identified and classified the preliminary issues that may arise at the pre-referral stage, into three categories. The first category of cases comprised of issues that are required to be decided by the court (Chief Justice/his designate). The second category of issues could be decided by the court (Chief Justice/his designate) or could be left to the Arbitral Tribunal. And, the third category of issues are required to be left exclusively for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide. Paragraph 22 of the said decision is relevant and is set out below:- "22. Where the intervention of the court is sought for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11, the duty of the Chief Justice or his designate is defined in SBP & Co. [SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618] This Court identified and segregated the preliminary issues that may arise for consideration in an application under Section 11 of the Act into three categories, that is, (i) issues which the Chief Justice or his designate is bound to decide; (ii) issues which he can also decide, that is, issues which he may choose to decide; and (iii) issues which should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by necessary implication non-arbitrable as per mandatory statute(s). Such questions arise rarely and, when they arise, are on most occasions questions of law. On the other hand, issues relating to contract formation, existence, validity and non-arbitrability would be connected and intertwined with the issues underlying the merits of the respective disputes/claims. They would be factual and disputed and for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide. 43. In order to address the controversy in the present petition, it would be essential to reconcile the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Vidya Drolia (supra). As noticed above, in Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court had overruled its earlier decision in the case of Antique Art Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) as not laying down the correct law. In addition, the Court had also indicated that the decision of the Supreme Court in SBP & Co. (supra) had been legislatively overruled by the introduction of sub-section (6A) and Section 11 of the A & C Act. The Supreme Court had also referred to the observations made in its earlier decision in Garware Wall Ropes Limited (supra), wherein the Court had obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention as incorporated in Section 11(6-A) ought to be respected." 45. However, as noticed above, in Vidya Drolia and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court had adopted the categories of issues referred to in Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (supra). A careful reading of paragraph 138 of the decision in the case of Vidya Drolia (supra) indicates that the Supreme Court had also clearly held that "issues relating to contract formation, existence, validity and non-arbitrability would be connected and intertwined with the issues underlying the merits of the respective disputes/claims would be left to arbitration." Thus, clearly all issues relating to existence of an Arbitration Agreement are not required to be decided by the Court while examining the questions as to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. 46. It would also be relevant to refer to the following observations from the concurring opinion of Ramana J. in Vidya Drolia's case. He had expressed that "Post the 2015 Amendment, judicial interference at the reference stage has been substantially curtailed post the 2015 Amendment, the structure of the Act was changed to bring it in tune with the pro-arbitration approach. Under th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers the dispute to arbitration and/or appoints an arbitrator, under Sections 8 and 11 respectively, such a decision will be final and non-appealable. An appeal can be maintained under Section 37 only in the event of refusal to refer parties to arbitration, or refusal to appoint an arbitrator.'" 49. The statement of objects and reasons appended to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2015, inter alia, explicitly state that the enactment is " (vi) to provide that while considering any application for appointment of arbitrator, the High Court or the Supreme Court shall examine the existence of a prima facie arbitration agreement and not other issues". (emphasis supplied) 50. It clearly follows from the above that this Court is not required at this stage to give a conclusive finding as to the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. In one sense, the Court would require to take a negative view if it finds that ex facie there is no Arbitration Agreement between the parties, and accordingly, the Court would reject the application under Section 11 of the Act. However, in all other cases where an arguable case is made out by the applicant, the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issal is barefaced and pellucid and when on the facts and law the litigation must stop at the first stage. Only when the court is certain that no valid arbitration agreement exists or the disputes/subject-matter are not arbitrable, the application under Section 8 would be rejected. At this stage, the court should not get lost in thickets and decide debatable questions of facts. Referral proceedings are preliminary and summary and not a mini trial. This necessarily reflects on the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the court and in this context, the observations of B.N. Srikrishna, J. of "plainly arguable" case in Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. [Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 234] are of importance and relevance. Similar views are expressed by this Court in Vimal Kishor Shah [Vimal Kishor Shah v. Jayesh Dinesh Shah, (2016) 8 SCC 788 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 303] wherein the test applied at the pre-arbitration stage was whether there is a "good arguable case" for the existence of an arbitration agreement. 135. The test of "good arguable case" has been elaborated by the England and Wales High Court in Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd. v. Homer Hulbert Maritime....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t this stage would encroach on the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal and violate the legislative scheme allocating jurisdiction between the courts and the Arbitral Tribunal. Centralisation of litigation with the Arbitral Tribunal as the primary and first adjudicator is beneficent as it helps in quicker and efficient resolution of disputes." * * 147. We would proceed to elaborate and give further reasons: 147.1. In Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. [Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engg. Ltd., (2019) 9 SCC 209 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 324], this Court had examined the question of stamp duty in an underlying contract with an arbitration clause and in the context had drawn a distinction between the first and second part of Section 7(2) of the Arbitration Act, albeit the observations made and quoted above with reference to "existence" and "validity" of the arbitration agreement being apposite and extremely important, we would repeat the same by reproducing para 29 thereof : (SCC p. 238) "29. This judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....os Brekoulakis accepts that validity, in terms of substantive and formal validity, are questions of contract and hence for the court to examine. 147.4. Most jurisdictions accept and require prima facie review by the court on non-arbitrability aspects at the referral stage. 147.5. Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act are complementary provisions as was held in Patel Engg. Ltd. [SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618] The object and purpose behind the two provisions is identical to compel and force parties to abide by their contractual understanding. This being so, the two provisions should be read as laying down similar standard and not as laying down different and separate parameters. Section 11 does not prescribe any standard of judicial review by the court for determining whether an arbitration agreement is in existence. Section 8 states that the judicial review at the stage of reference is prima facie and not final. Prima facie standard equally applies when the power of judicial review is exercised by the court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, we can read the mandate of valid arbitration agreement in Section 8 into mandate of Section 11, that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... introduction of a "Code of Compulsory Costs"." 147.9. Even in Duro Felguera [Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764], Kurian Joseph, J., in para 52, had referred to Section 7(5) and thereafter in para 53 referred to a judgment of this Court in M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd. [M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Som Datt Builders Ltd., (2009) 7 SCC 696 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 271] to observe that the analysis in the said case supports the final conclusion that the memorandum of understanding in the said case did not incorporate an arbitration clause. Thereafter, reference was specifically made to Patel Engg. Ltd. [SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618] and Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 117] to observe that the legislative policy is essential to minimise court's interference at the pre-arbitral stage and this was the intention of sub-section (6) to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. Para 48 in Duro Felguera [Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 764] sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which inter alia, constituted a succession and management scheme. In 1996, Thomson Reuters Corporation Pte. Limited approached the petitioner for a long term equity investment in the Company and accordingly, a Shareholders Agreement (SHA) and a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) were entered into between the parties, wherein Thomson Reuters acquired 49% shares of ANI. Clause 28 of the SHA specified that the said agreement would supersede any or all prior agreements, understandings and arrangements. Dispute arose between the parties regarding transfer of certain shares of ANI. The Petitioner contested the same as being violative of the Companies Act, 2013, as well as the MoU and accordingly, filed a petition under Section 11 of the A & C Act for appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the MoU. The Delhi High Court held that the SHA being a comprehensive agreement between all the shareholders had novated the MOU and thus, the arbitration clause had perished with it. The said decision was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court. The respondents contended that the MoU was superseded after its clauses were incorporated in the Articles of Assoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n clause 28.2 between the parties shall stand superseded, does not even refer to clause 28.1. No consideration has been given to the separate and distinct subject matter of the MoU and the SHA. Also, Kishorilal Gupta (supra) and Damodar Valley Corporation (supra) are judgments which deal with novation in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which had a scheme completely different from the scheme contained in Section 16 read with Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act. 53. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. v. Dicitex Furnishing Limited (2020) 4 SCC 621. The said decision was rendered in the context of the unamended provisions of Section 11 of the A & C Act. Concededly, the extent of inquiry under Section 11 prior to the introduction of sub-section (6A) was wider. In the aforesaid case, the respondent had contended that it was coerced into executing a discharge voucher as dictated by the appellant as it was in urgent need to meet its mounting liabilities. The Bombay High Court found the said dispute to be genuine and had referred the parties to arbitration. The Supreme Court had while dismissing the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce it is apparent that the parties had entered into an agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration, the dispute whether the same has been discharged by a settlement is required to be liberally construed in favour of relegating the parties to arbitration. Unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the dispute raised by the claimant with regard to the validity of the settlement is bereft of any merit; is not bona fide; or is a frivolous one, the Court must relegate the parties to resolve the disputes in arbitration. 55. It is also relevant to bear in mind that the decision whether to refer the parties to arbitration is concerned with only the forum where the disputes are required to be agitated. In case where the Courts finds that the arbitration agreement does not exists, the parties would nonetheless be entitled to agitate the disputes before Civil Courts. In this perspective, once it is established that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement, the Courts must lean in favour of relegating the parties to that forum. Once it established that the parties had entered into an Arbitration Agreement, the question whether the contract (including the arbitration clause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the higher management to expedite release of the bank guarantees. SPML on the other hand had requested NTPC to make an additional payment of Rs. 1,37,24,411/- on account of (a) revocation of the liquidated damages of Rs. 86,19,871/-; (b) payment of additional works amounting to Rs. 35,92,200/-; and (c) payment for alleging wrongful deduction amounting to Rs. 15,12,340/-. It was NTPC's stand that the contract closure process had been concluded and the only pending issue was release of the Bank Guarantees, and therefore, no further payments could be made. This was not agreeable to SPML. 60. On 13.11.2019, SPML sent a letter, the contents of which are reproduced below:- "Dear Sir, With reference to the discussion with our Contracts Head Mr. S. Bhattacharya on 08.11.2019 and also subsequent Minutes drawn on the same day. We understand that unless and until the Notice of Arbitration is withdrawn NTPC will not release the following bank guarantees: Nature of BG BG No. Name of the Bank Opening Date of BG BG Amount (Rs.) ADVANCE C040ILG002609 Punjab National Bank l-Aug-09 19,199,725 ADVANCE 0040ILG001309 Punjab National Bank 0l-Jul-09 25,494,501 PBG 0040ILGO0I10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tration as envisaged in the contract. The details address and contracts have already been shared in the mentioned letter and we are now requesting you to nominate a person as your nominee Learned Arbitrator as a step towards the formation of the three member Learned Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the subject contract as per the terms and conditions of the contract. This is without prejudice to our other rights and contentions under the contract." Thanking you, For SPML Infra Ltd." 63. SPML followed the aforesaid communication by another letter dated 05.12.2019 once again requesting NTPC to nominate its Arbitrator so that an Arbitral Tribunal could be constituted. This request was once again reiterated by SPML by its letter dated 20.12.2019. 64. On 21.12.2019, SPML sent a letter, the contents of which are set out below:- "Dear Sir, In furtherance of the aforementioned letters, meetings and the telephonic conversation held on 21.12.2019, between Mr. B. Venkateshwarlu Addl. General Manager of NTPC and our Mr. S. Bhattacharya Contracts Head SPML Infra Ltd. Since we are hard pressed for blockage of huge sum of Rs. 14,96,89,126 for non-rel....