ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, as amended by Act 3 of 2016 (in short, "the Act of 1996").
(2.) The petitioner is a company incorporate under the Companies Act , 1956. The petitioner carries on business in coal sector. The respondent no.2, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), is a coal producer of India and is claimed to be wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent no.1 Coal India Limited. In response to the E- Tender Notice issued by the respondent no.2 on January 07,2014, for outsourcing of OB removal and coal extraction at Section I at Rajarappa OCP for a period of 4 (four) years, the petitioner submitted its tender. On May 06, 2015 the respondent no.2 issued the work order in favour of the petitioner for removal of OB from quarry, re-handling of OB and extraction and transfer of W-III grade Coal in tippers. The petitioner had submitted the tender from its office at Bangalore (now known Bengaluru) to the respondent no.2 at its office at Ranchi, in the State of Jharkhand. The respondent no.2 had also issued the said work order dated May 06, 2015 from its office at Ranchi to the petitioner at its office at Bangalore (now known Bengaluru). These are evident from the said work order dated May 6, 2015 disclosed as Annexure-'B' to the petition. The petitioner has alleged that due to various breaches committed by the respondent no.2 it was not only unable to complete the work allotted by the said work order dated May 06, 2015 and it has also suffered damages. Thus, according to the petitioner, various disputes and differences have arisen between itself and respondent no.2 relating to the said work order dated May 06, 2015. It is further alleged that the respondent no.2 has refused to pay lawful dues of the petitioner under the said work order dated May 06, 2015. Admittedly, there is no arbitration agreement in writing between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 for adjudication of the disputes or differences arisen between the parties relating to the said work order dated May 06, 2015 through arbitration.
(3.) In the application the petitioner has disclosed a circular dated April 07, 2017 issued by the respondent no.1 to its subsidiary coal companies, including the respondent no.2 that all future contracts and work orders to be issued by the coal companies including the respondent no.2 shall incorporate a procedure for settlement of disputes and differences through arbitration for parties other than Government agencies. Clause 5 of the said circular issued by the respondent no.1 also provided that with regard to disputes and differences cropping up in the existing work order/contract, employer, being the coal company shall adopt a procedure for settlement of the same through arbitration. The petitioner asserted that the said circular dated April 07, 2017 issued by the respondent no.1 is binding upon the respondent no.2 and as such, the respondent no.2 is duty bound to refer the disputes and differences arisen between the parties relating to the said work order dated May 16, 2015 to arbitration.;