MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED PRAKASHGAD A GOVT OF MAHARASHTRA COMPANY Vs. WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED A SUBSIDIARY OF COAL INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was heard earlier on 2.3.2012 and came to be adjourned to today. Today, I have heard respective Counsel further. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

(2.) The existence of provision for arbitration or its invocation as such is not in dispute. The question is about scope of proceedings to be taken up before Arbitrator and hence its availability.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that arbitration clause contemplates dispute or difference relating to the interpretation and application of provisions of contracts to be referred to the Arbitrator. He points out that this is highlighted by using words "such dispute or difference'. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd Versus. M/s. Jain Studios Ltd., 2006 AIR(SC) 963to point out that parts unconscionable or in breach of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 can be ignored in appropriate circumstances. However, as six disputes on which arbitration is sought, do not pertain to interpretation and application of the provisions of agreement, the arbitration clause itself is not applicable. He, therefore, contends that it is clause 15.2 of Coal Supply Agreement under NCDP, which is squarely attracted.