Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The first and third respondents are unnecessary parties and have been needlessly impleaded. Since the first and third respondents are not parties to the arbitration agreement cited by the petitioner, the names of the first and third respondents are deleted from the array of parties. This is a request under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 consequent upon the petitioner's invocation of the arbitration agreement by its letter of March 9, 2012 going unheeded despite due receipt thereof by the respondent and the appointing authority named in the arbitration agreement.
(2.) The claim pertains to transportation services rendered by the petitioner to the respondent in the early 1980. Following disputes having arisen as to the amount payable to the petitioner, a committee was constituted to ascertain the sum and the committee opined in 1983 that a sum of Rs. 19,81,386/ - was due to the petitioner. It appears that substantial payments were released to the petitioner and by a letter dated September 15, 1987, the respondent admitted that a balance sum of Rs. 1,47,990/ - was payable to the petitioner in respect of the services rendered. A subsequent letter of January 14, 1988 was issued by the respondent acknowledging its debt and assuring the petitioner of immediate payment.
(3.) For a period of more than three years after the issuance of the letter of January 14, 1988, there appears to have been no acknowledgement of the liability or the jural relationship by the respondent. On May 6, 1991 the respondent or its holding company wrote to the petitioner as follows: "This has reference to your letter No. PRC/120A/91 -92/1379 dated 4th May, 1991 we stated that your bills are under process in our accounts department and your payment shall be released after adjustment of the previous advance shortly.";