Soumen Sen, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th March 2016 passed by the District Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk in Judicial Misc. Case No. 74 of 2012, by which the District Judge dismissed the appellant's application under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") "for want of jurisdiction".
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are straightforward and uncontroverted. The appellant was declared the successful bidder of a tender relating to "Area Development Work in Tank Farm and Pump Station premises at Haldia", awarded vide contract dated 11th June 1996 under Notice Inviting Tender No. PL/PJ/HBC/C/95-96/4, issued by the Deputy General Manager (Projects, T&I) of the respondent.
(3.) Clause 9.0.1.0 of the General Conditions of Contract, which formed part of the contract documents, contained an arbitration agreement, in the following terms - "9.0.1.0 - Subject to the provisions of clause 6.7.1.0 and 6.7.2.0 hereof, any dispute or difference between the parties hereto arising out of any notified claim of the contractor included in his Final Bill in accordance with the provisions of clause 6.6.3.0 hereof and/or arising out of any amount claimed by the Owner (whether or not the amount claimed by the Owner or any part thereof shall have been deducted from the Final Bill of the Contractor or any amount paid by the Owner to the Contractor in respect of the Work) shall be referred to arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator selected by the Contractor from a panel of three persons nominated by the General Manager.";