ENGINEERING DESIGN Vs. ORISSA WATER SUPPLY SEWERAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As per the Scheme framed by the Orissa High Court, the petitioner was expected to produce the Arbitration Agreement along with the application. Of course, in Konkan Railways Corporation Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd., 2002 (I) SCALE 465, the Supreme Court has held that the scheme is not mandatory. But alt the same, since it was necessary to know the content of the alleged arbitration clause, I directed the petitioner to produce the Arbitration Agreement. The order in that behalf was passed on 29.1.2002. The matter underwent a number of adjournments and it is seen that till today, the arbitration agreement has not been produced. Though counsel asserted that the agreement had been produced, from a verification of the records, it is seen that no such agreement has been produced.

(2.) AT the time of hearing, learned counsel made available a copy of what he called the arbitration agreement. It is seen to be part of the Section relating to technical information. It contains the following which according to counsel is the arbitration clause :

(3.) COUNSEL then sought to contend that in view of the issuance of Annexure 1 notice and Annexure 2 claim raised by the petitioner before the Member Secretary of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bhubaneswar and the reply Annexure 3 of the Member Secretary, Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, it must be held that an arbitration agreement has come into existence, within the meaning of Section 7(4)(c) of the Act. Section 7(4) in so far as it is relevant reads :