ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY,J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996").
(2.) The facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner submitted an offer to the respondent for the purpose of setting up a Coke-oven Gas based Captive Power Plant at its Integrated Steel Project at Kharagpur. After considering the said offer, on February 24, 2008 the respondent issued a letter of intent for design, engineering, supply, construction, testing, commissioning, trial run and stabilisation of 2x40 MW power generation station as per the scope and battery limits to be discussed and decided mutually. The petitioner accepted the said letter of intent and the respondent paid Rs.5 crores as a token advance to the petitioner and the latter also provided the former with a corporate guarantee for a sum of Rs.5 crores. On May 02, 2008 the respondent issued a formal work order upon the petitioner for design, engineering, supply, construction, testing, commissioning, trial run and stabilization of the said 2x40 MW power generation station at a total price of Rs.252 crores. Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the said work order stipulated the terms and conditions as well as the scope of work to be carried out by the petitioner as well as the terms of payment by the respondent to the petitioner. Annexure - 'B' to the said work order contained clauses, inter alia, contemplating that any disputes or differences arising in connection with the contract shall be to the extent possible settled amicably between the parties and if the disputes and differences cannot be settled amicably the same shall be referred to arbitration to the arbitrators, each one to be nominated by the respective parties. In case, the said arbitrators are not able to settle the disputes by themselves the matter shall be referred to an Arbitrator mutually nominated by the parties whose decision shall be final. Subsequently, however, the respondent reduced the scope of work to the effect that the petitioner was required to design, engineering, supply, construction, testing, commissioning, trial run and stabilization of 1x40 MW power generation station (hereinafter referred to as "the said power generation station") and same was accepted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent issued one purchase order dated May 16, 2008 and two purchase orders both dated May 18, 2008 to the petitioner for supplying various equipment, materials and spares of the said power generation station as well as civil construction work and for erection, testing, commissioning, trial run, stabilization of the said power generation station. On November 29, 2011 the respondent also issued another purchase order to the petitioner for design, supply, erection, testing, commissioning and handing over 132Kb which was amended on June 22, 2012 for Rs.3.30 crore. On January 10,2010 the respondent issued a letter informing the petitioner of the fresh "price break up" against supplies of material, civil work and erection, installation and commissioning, trial run test and performance guarantee test etc. in respect of the said power generation station.
(3.) The first purchase order dated May 16, 2008 contemplated that any dispute or difference arising in connection with the contract shall be to the extent possible be amicably settled between the parties herein and if amicable settlement cannot be reached then all disputes shall be settled by joint arbitration. The petitioner claims that the respondent committed various breaches of the said four purchase orders which were part, parcel and integrally connected and intrinsically interlinked to the works under the said first purchase order dated May 16, 2008. According the petitioner, the communication dated January 9, 2010 issued by the respondent issuing fresh "price break-up" against supplies of materials, civil work and erection of the said power generation station goes to show that the respondent had awarded the said work to the petitioner under different purchase orders albeit the work order remained a single unit.;