M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Delip Jereath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) IN the instant application filed under Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate order for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement and for reference of dispute to the appointed Arbitrator for the adjudication. Petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent for the purchase of washery products from the different collieries. Subsequently a dispute arose with regard to the release of allotted quantity of slurry which was not settled between the parties. Petitioner's case is that after sending several letters for settlement of the dispute a notice was served upon the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator but nothing was done by the respondents.
(3.) MR . A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, firstly, contended that Clause 24 of the agreement is not an Arbitration Clause and, therefore, the instant application is not maintainable. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in a case reported in (1999) 2 SCC 166. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner before filing the instant request petition has not complied the requirements of Section 11(4)(a) of the Act, and, therefore, the instant application is pre -mature.;