D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Animesh Kranti Ghosal, learned senior advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Poddar, senior advocate for the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order dated 24.11.2007 (Annexure-7) passed by the Sole Arbitrator in relation to the Arbitration Proceeding concerning disputes arising out of Work Order No. TC PL/05-06/N-003 dated 17.02.2006 and Purchase Order No. TC PL/05-06/N-002 dated 21.02.2006, whereby the objection taken by the petitioner against initiation and continuation of the Arbitration Proceeding was rejected. The main ground of challenge in this writ application is that the initiation of the arbitration proceeding by the Arbitrator is without jurisdiction on account of the fact that there is no arbitration agreement whatsoever between the parties by which disputes arising between them in relation to the contract, could be referred for resolution through arbitration. Further ground is that the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator by the respondent without the consent of the petitioner is also illegal and therefore, such appointment of Arbitrator is without jurisdiction.
(3.) FACTS of the case in brief is that the respondents had awarded a work order dated 17.02.2006 (Annexure-1) to the petitionercompany, for designing, fabrication, erection and commissioning of Bunker for crushed coal including supporting structure, in accordance with the specification mentioned in the work order. Payment for the work executed was to be made at the rates specified in the work order in respect of the various items of work. In the process of execution of the work order, the petitioner was required to supply all the requisite materials except the electric motors including cables and G.I. Sheets to cover the walkways and galleries. A similar work order was again issued on 21.02.2006 for same nature of job as per specification stipulated in the order and at rates agreed to between the parties, itemwise. Both the work orders were to be executed and completed by the petitioner within the dates stipulated in the orders. The work orders were followed by a separate purchase order dated 21.02.2006 (Annexure-2) under which the petitioner was to supply the various items mentioned in the order for the purpose of use and application in executing the work of erection and commissioning of 3 Nos. Belt Cooper of 100mm width and 30MT/Hr capacity complete with supporting structures to handle coal/crushed coal. The rates for the individual items of supply were agreed upon and mentioned in the purchase order. Certain terms and conditions relating to the purchase order were stipulated in the purchase order itself and duly signed by the representatives of both the parties.;