IN THE ---------------
COURT OF --------- AT …………..
I.A NO. OF 20--
IN
------------. _______ OF 20--
IN THE MATTER OF:-
ABC. … Applicant
VERSUS
Xyz
… Respondent
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION
9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:
1. The present petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable in its present
form and is liable to be dismissed at the outset. The
petitioner has not
approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has
suppressed the
material facts as such the petition deserves to be
dismissed on this ground
alone.
. 2. That the petitioner has presented the
instant case based upon false, frivolous
and fabricated documents before this Hon'ble Court and
hence the petitioner
is
liable for perjury.
3. That the petitioner in the present case is liable
for suggestion-veri and
suppresio-falsi which is evident from the contents of
the present petition
filed by it before this Hon'ble Court.
4. That there is no privity of contract between the
petitioner and answering
respondent and therefore there is no question for the
present petition being
maintainable in the eyes of law.
5. It is a settled law that for the purposes of
seeking any relief under Section 9
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there
must be a valid and
subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties,
however, in the present
case there is no valid and subsisting arbitration
agreement between the
petitioner and the answering respondent and infact the
petitioner and the
answering respondent have not entered into any
Contract with each other for
any work whatsoever. A bare perusal of the petition
would clearly
demonstrate that the petitioner has no privity of
contract with the answering
respondent and the petitioner has even submitted that
the petitioner has
never seen any documents of the contract of the
answering respondent. The
petitioner itself mentions in the present petition
that the respondent no. 1 is
the contractor of the petitioner and thus the
answering respondent has
nothing to do with the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to mention
that the maintainability of
the present petition is challenged on the ground that
the petitioner is no more
working at the site and has been evicted from the site
by its contractor for
reasons of non-performance only and another third
party has now been
awarded with a Contract in place of the petitioner as
informed to the
answering respondent by the respondent no. 3 herein.
7. The law is clear as to the position that relief
under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be claimed
only when the basic requirement of contractual relationship between the parties
has been duly
satisfied. …….
9. ……
11.Therefore in so far as the judicial position is
concerned it is crystal clear that
the present petition is not maintainable against the
answering respondent on
the ground that there is no arbitration agreement
between the petitioner and
the answering respondent.
12.That the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the
present petition cannot be
claimed against the answering respondent due to lack
of privity of the
contract and therefore the whole purpose of the
present petition becomes
absolutely infructuous.
13.In view of the above mentioned legal position, the
answering respondent is
neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present
petition and therefore
the answering respondent ought to be deleted from
being a party to the
instant proceedings.
14.By virtue of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC
the answering
respondent ought to be deleted from being a party to
the proceedings on the
ground that there is no agreement/ contract and also
there is no arbitration
agreement of the petitioner with that of the answering
respondent and hence the present petition cannot be held to be maintainable
against the answering
respondent.
15.Apart from the above mentioned grounds, the present
petition must also be
dismissed since the petitioner has not approached this
Hon'ble Court with
clean hands. ……..
17.That the present petition is also not maintainable
on the ground that the
petitioner is trying to misled this Hon'ble court and
induced the Hon'ble
Court to believe that there exists a contractual nexus
between the petitioner
and the answering respondent and only on the basis of
such a false
inducement and misleading, this Hon'ble court has
issued notice upon the
answering respondent by attempting to create a
contractual relationship
between the answering respondent and the petitioner
which does not exist.
Without prejudice to this, it is further submitted
that an arbitration
agreement shall have to be in writing and cannot be
inferred.
18.In view of the above mentioned legal preliminary
objections, the present
petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone without delving into
the merits of the case purely on the basis of
maintainability,
PARA-WISE
REPLY
1. The contents of the para under reference are: not
being replied for want of
knowledge.
2. The contents of the para under reference are: not
being replied herein as it
pertains to the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner
and the answering
respondent has no knowledge of any communication
between them.
3. The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. It is denied
that the petitioner was ever to be directly connected with
the respondent no…………………….
.
4. The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. It is denied that there was any efficiency or
delay on the part of the
answering respondent for either any drawings or any
layout plan works etc.
and irrespective of any fact it is stated that the
petitioner has no nexus or
connection with that of the answering respondent and therefore it is stated that
no drawings or layouts were to be provided to the
petitioner by the
respondent.
5. The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. As stated earlier there is no privity of
contract or connection of the
petitioner with the answering respondent and therefore
it is denied that the
answering respondent was to ever replied to any
alleged hindrances faced by
the petitioner. Since the answering respondent was
only concerned with the
respondent no. , hence any communication made by the
said respondent
would only be considered.
6. The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. At the risk of repetition it is reiterated
that the answering respondent
has no contract with that of the petitioner and
therefore there arises no
question for the answering respondent to consider any
communication or
representation made by the petitioner and thus the
averments made in the para
under reference are totally denied being irrelevant.
Be that as it may, it is also
denied that there were any hindrances for the work of
the answering
respondent at any time during the execution of the
captioned contract.
7. The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. Since the answering respondent was not having
any connection with
the.
petitioner therefore the answering respondent cannot state, admit or deny…………
23.The contents of the para under reference are not
replied being unconcerned
with the answering respondent and for want of
knowledge. It is most
respectfully submitted that the present petition seems
to be a collusive action
of the petitioner and the respondent no………
.
24.The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. It is denied
that the petitioner has a prima facie good case and on the
contrary from a bare perusal of the present petition
it is evident that firstly the present petition is not maintainable in its
present form for the reasons
stated herein above and also the fact that the.
petition is based on false and
frivolous averments which are nothing but untrue
statements made to mislead
this Hon'ble Court.
25.The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. It is denied that balance of
convenience lies in favour of the petitioner
on the contrary from a bare perusal of,the present
petition it is evident that
firstly the present petition is not maintainable in
its present form for the
reasons stated hereinabove and also the fact that the
petition is based on false
and frivolous averments which are nothing but untrue
statements made to
mislead this Hon'ble Court.
26.The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied.
27.The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied. In view of the preliminary objections as well
as the preliminary
submissions made by the answering respondent herein it
is submitted that no
cause of action has arisen in the present matter and
the present matter is
nothing but a false and frivolous petition.
28.The contents of the para under reference need no
reply.
29.The contents of the para under reference need no
reply.
30.The contents of the para under reference are wrong
and devoid of merit hence
denied.The averments made in the para under reference
evidently show that
the intention of the present petition was only aimed
towards the respondent
no. 1 and not the other respondents. Since there was
no agreement between
the petitioner and the answering respondent hence
there is no document to
decide jurisdiction amongst the party. In View of
the above mentioned preliminary objections and preliminary
submissions it is vehemently clear that at the first
and foremost the present
petition is not maintainable against the answering
respondent and
thereafter the averments made in the present petition
are evidently untrue and
false
and therefore the prayer made by the petitioner shall be dismissed.
PETITIONER/ APPLICANT
THROUGH
Advocate
NEW DELHI
DATE:
