TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r "Installation Services for Station Piping Package 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S. SPML Infra Ltd. vs. NTPC Ltd. and by an order dated 08.07.2019 passed in that petition, this court stayed the encashment of the Bank Guarantees subject to SPML keeping the same 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Agreement under duress and without free consent. SPML further repudiated the said Agreement. SPML further requested NTPC to accept its claims as set out in the letter dated 15.05.2019. 18. 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 Agreem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al occasions had communicated to SPML to amicably resolve the disputes and had also advised to refer the dispute to the ESC wherein, an adjudicator would have been appointed for resolution of the disputes. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties novated the Contract Agreement. With the said novation, the Arbitration Clause contained in the Contract Agreement perished and since the Settlement Agreement does not include an Arbitration Clause, the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction as decree of the court. The parties thereby waive any objections to or claims of immunity from such enforcement. 6.2.9 The arbitrator(s) shall give reasoned award." 27. Mr. Lekhi, learned ASJ had relied on the decision of the 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies of disputes in connection with a contract, such as the question of repudiation, frustration, breach etc. In those cases it is the performance of the contract that has come to an end, but the contract is still in existence for certain purposes in respect of disputes arising under it or in connection 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 set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter into the Settlement Agreement by economic coercion and undue influence. The question whether there has been a valid novation of the Contract Agreement is itself a subject of dispute. The principal question before this court at this stage is whether the said dispute is required to be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal or by this Court. 34. 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tificate was obtained on account of fraud/coercion/undue influence practiced by the other party is liable to produce prima facie evidence to substantiate the same, the correctness thereof may be open for the Chief Justice to look into this aspect to find out where the dispute is bona fide and genuine in taking a decision under Section 11(6) of the Act". 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if the agreement contains a clause which provides for arbitration pertaining to the disputes which have arisen between the parties to the agreement.***59. The scope of the power under Section 11of the 1996 Act was considerably wide in view of the decisions in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cision on all these aspects rendered by the Chief Justice would attain finality and it is obvious that the decision on these aspects could be taken only after notice to the parties and after hearing them. 39. It is necessary to define what exactly the Chief Justice, approached with an application under Section 11 of the Act, is to decide at that stage. Obviously, he has to decide his 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 decid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this stage, it would also be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 267. In that case, the Supreme Court had, inter alia, considered the import of doctrine of Competence-Competence, which finds statutory expression in Section 16 of the A & C Act, in the context of issues that arise at a pre-referral stage. 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., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xceptional cases, for the arbitrator to decide. In the first category, we would add and include the question or issue relating to whether the cause of action relates to action in personam or rem; whether the subject-matter of the dispute affects third-party rights, have erga omnes effect, requires centralised adjudication; whether the subject-matter relates to inalienable sovereign and public interest functions of the State; and whether the subject-matter of dispute is expressly or 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BP and Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618] and Boghara Polyfab [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 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." 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 n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the opinion that prima facie the arbitration agreement exists, then it shall refer the dispute to arbitration, and leave the existence of the arbitration agreement to be finally determined by the Arbitral Tribunal. However, if the judicial authority concludes that the agreement does not exist, then the conclusion will be final and not prima facie. The amendment also envisages that there shall be a conclusive determination as to whether the arbitration agreement is null and void. In the event that the judicial authority refers 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 is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinciples of separation and competence-competence and Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the referral court without getting bogged down would compel the parties to abide unless there are good and substantial reasons to the contrary. 134. Prima facie examination is not full review but a primary first review to weed out manifestly and ex facie non-existent and invalid arbitration agreements and non-arbitrable disputes. The prima facie review at the reference stage is to cut the deadwood and trim off the side branches in straightforward cases where dismissal 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; * 140. Accordingly, when it appears that prima facie review would be inconclusive, or on consideration inadequate as it requires detailed examination, the matter should be left for final determination by the Arbitral Tribunal selected by the parties by consent. The underlying rationale being not to delay or defer and to discourage parties from using referral proceeding as a ruse to delay and obstruct. In such cases a full review by the courts at 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 Garwar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as per Merriam-Webster Dictionary). It would be rather odd for the court to hold and say that the arbitration agreement exists, though ex facie and manifestly the arbitration agreement is invalid in law and the dispute in question is non-arbitrable. The court is not powerless and would not act beyond jurisdiction, if it rejects an application for reference, when the arbitration clause is admittedly or without doubt is with a minor, lunatic or the only claim seeks a probate of a will. 147.3. Most scholars and jurists accept and agree that the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement are the same. Even Stavros 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 contractu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his savings (or out of his borrowings) worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for what he has lost for no fault? The suggestion to the legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by the one who has lost. The suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that the legislature should consider the 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 suppo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion-making authority between the court at the referral stage and the arbitrators' primary jurisdiction to decide disputes on merits. The court as the judicial forum of the first instance can exercise prima facie test jurisdiction to screen and knock down ex facie meritless, frivolous and dishonest litigation. Limited jurisdiction of the courts ensures expeditious, alacritous and efficient disposal when required at the referral stage. 52. In Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 975 of 2021, decided on 06.04.2021, the petitioner and the respondents had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in relation to their company, ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. (ANI), 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The court cannot, at this stage, enter into a mini trial or elaborate review of the facts and law which would usurp the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. 10. The impugned judgment was wholly incorrect in deciding that the plea of doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz and reliance on Section 11(6A) of the 1996 Act, as expounded in Duro Felguera (supra) and Mayavati Trading (supra) were not applicable to the case in hand. Apart from going into a detailed consideration of the MoU and the SHA, which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the learned Single Judge, while considering clause 28 of the SHA to arrive at the finding that any kind of agreement as detailed in 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 117] which upheld the concept of economic duress. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning in the impugned judgment [Dicitex Furnishing Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.] cannot be faulted. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is held to be unmerited; it is dismissed, without order as to costs." [emphasis supplied] 54. It is relevant to bear in mind the aforesaid note of caution struck by the Supreme Court: a detailed examination as to the disputes by this Court would undoubtedly prejudice one or the other party. In the aforesaid context, it is clear that once 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid dispute. 58. The recitals of the Settlement Agreement dated 27.05.2020 record that SPML had approached NTPC for resolving the disputes and in this regard various communications were exchanged on 08.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 25.11.2019 and 24.12.2019 and thereafter, the parties had arrived at a settlement through mutual consultation. 59. The communication dated 08.11.2019 refers to the Minutes of the Meeting held on that date between the representatives of SPML and NTPC. The Minutes of the Meeting indicates that NTPC had withheld the Bank Guarantees pending recoveries in respect of works executed by SPML on NTPC Bongaigon. NTPC had proposed that, if SPML withdraws the notice for arbitration, NTPC Simhadri will propose to 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 on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by NTPC. Therefore we do not find any reason why our Bank Guarantees are still being hold by NTPC without any cogent reasoning. We have already issued the letter as asked by you and in all fairness NTPC should release the BGs for which we are suffering multifolds: 1. Paying huge Bank Commission charges. 2. Paying margin money of 25% amounting to Rs. 3.74 Crore approx. 3. Loosing on new business opportunities as our limits are blocked due to these BGs and also unable to submit new tender. We again request you to release the BGs otherwise you may refer to our letter no: 0218/NTPC-Simadri/SPML/MKC/155 dated 23rd July, 2019 wherein we have nominated Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Dr. Satish Chandra, former Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad as our Nominee Learned Arbitrator in the matter to have the disputes and claims adjudicated by way of arbitration 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conomically coerced to enter into the Settlement Agreement. However, this Court is unable to accept that the dispute whether the Contract Agreement stood discharged/novated in terms of the Settlement Agreement, is ex facie untenable, insubstantial or frivolous. 67. The contention that the reference to arbitration is premature as the parties have not exhausted the processes under the dispute resolution mechanism inasmuch as, the parties were required to first attempt to resolve the disputes amicably is unmerited. If they were unsuccessful in doing so, they were to refer it to an Adjudicator. And, if the disputes still remained unresolved, the same could be referred to arbitration. 68. By a letter dated 15.05.2019, SPML had called upon NTPC to pay an amount of Rs. 72,01,53,898/- against its claims within the period of fifteen days. Since the said demand was not met, SPML had by its letter dated 12.06.2019 requested the Chairman cum Managing Director of NTPC to appoint an adjudicator within thirty days in terms of Clause 6.1.3 of GCC. It is SPML's case that since an adjudicator was not appointed, SPML invoked the Arbitration Clause and by its letter dated 23.07.2019, it nom....