- (1.) The defence taken by the State to this request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.
(2.) It is the admitted position that the value of the contract exceeded Rs. 1 crore. It is also admitted by the petitioner now that the standard terms appended to the petition are not the standard terms governing the contract. However, the petitioner claims that since the arbitration clause contained in the general conditions appended to the affidavit-in-opposition indicate that the appointing authority would be the chief engineer and it was the chief engineer whose authority was invoked by the petitioner herein, the failure on the part of the chief engineer to appoint the arbitrator entitles the petitioner to request the Chief Justice or her designate to now constitute the tribunal.
(3.) The copy of the general conditions containing the arbitration clause appended to the State's affidavit shows clause 25 to have been deleted by crossing it out across its face, though no signature or initials of any person appears to endorse such deletion. The petitioner contends that if the arbitration clause stood deleted from the contract between the parties, clause 3.08 of the abridged notice inviting tender (NIT) and clause 3.11 thereof would be otiose.;