ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) In this application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016 (in short "the Act of 1996") the petitioner has prayed for an order of injunction restraining the respondents-Eastern Railway from taking any step or acting in terms of the demand notices dated July 26, 2018, July 30, 2018 and August 15, 2018. By the said demand notices the respondents has called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,10,71,724/- on account of placement/withdrawal charges of loaded/ empty rakes from Tapsi station to their private siding for the period between November, 2017 till the month of May, 2018.
(2.) Considering the materials on record, it appears the disputes between the parties relate to a private siding agreement dated April 19, 2010 whereby the respondents agreed for electrification of the petitioner's private siding at Tapsi in the District of Burdwan. The said agreement dated April 19, 2010 also contains the arbitration clause for adjudication of all disputes between the parties through arbitration. According to the petitioner, in the month of November 2015 it paid Rs. 1,40,66,067 to the respond towards the cost estimate for electrification of their siding. The petitioner claims that it was the respondent railway who committed the delay in completion of the electrification work under the said agreement, and as such it cannot make any claim on account of placement/withdrawal charges of loaded/ empty rakes from Tapsi station to their private siding for the period between November, 2017 till the month of May, 2018. Admittedly, the electrification work through distance charges up to the petitioner's private siding has been completed in the month of May, 2018. By an internal communication dated June 29, 2018 the Senior Divisional Engineer/TRD informed the Divisional Commercial Manager that there has been excessive delay in procurement of materials which affected the electrification work relating to the petitioner's private siding.
(3.) Mrs. Banerjee appearing for the respondent's railway contended that the said agreement did not specify the time period for completion of the electrification of the said private siding of the petitioner. She further submitted that the said demand notices challenged by the petitioner are raised by the railway for the services rendered to the of the petitioner on account of placement/withdrawal charges of loaded/ empty rakes from Tapsi station to their private siding. The petitioner was liable to and they also paid the earlier bills/demands raised on them on account of placement/withdrawal charges of loaded/ empty rakes from Tapsi station to their private siding for the earlier period.;