SLP (C) No. 29310/2019 Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. V/s. M/s A.P.

Construction
The subject petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,

The petitioner (Mahanadi Coalfields Limited) impleaded M/s A.P. Construction the in the above
petition challenging the impugned judgement of the petition filed by M/s A.P. Construction in the
Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.

The subject petition has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by the petitioner Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited in the matter of an application under Special Leave Petition mentioned under
Article 136 of Indian Constitution, under the impugned judgement and final order dated 08.11.2019
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in ARBP No. 32 of 2018 whereby the Ld. Single judge
has erred in referring the case to the Arbitration without any ‘Arbitration clause’ in the contract. The
petitioner is questioning and challenging, whether the application u/s 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act is maintainable in absence of the any arbitration clause, whether the impugned
judgement laid down by the High Court od Orissa is not against the law and whether clause 15 of the
said contract can be read as Arbitration clause?

The grounds of the petitioner in the aforesaid petition were:

1. That the findings in the contested judgement were erroneous and perverse, making it
unsustainable.
2. The asserted claims of the respondent cannot be directed to arbitration because the contract
dated 21.03.2012 does not contain an arbitration clause, which the Hon'ble High Court failed
to recognise.
3. That the provision U/s 15 was misinterpreted by the High Court, which concluded that it
constituted an arbitration clause. Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court incorrectly noted that
consent existed to interpret Clause 15 as an arbitration clause, even though such consent did
not exist.
4. That it has been inconsistently held that a dispute cannot be submitted to arbitration in the
absence of a joint memo or a joint application.
5. That the Hon’ble High court has not erred in appreciating that the application U/s 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is not maintainable in the absence of any Arbitration
clause. And the judgement and order dtd.08.11.2019 passed by the High Court is patently
illegal, perverse, unfair and unreasonable and liable to be quashed.
6. That the alleged claims were superfluous and the entire payment has been released in favor of
the respondent herein. No protest has been made while receiving the payment. Hence, the
alleged claim was after thought and non-maintainable.

Brief details and contentions of the case filed in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa:
1. That the petitioner has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act in order to appoint a sole arbitrator to settle disputes between the parties
because the Opp. party has failed to do so on the petitioner's request and in accordance with
the agreement.
2.