Ms Rekha Khampariya vs National Highways Authority Of India & Anr.

As Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents correctly points out, this petition cannot be maintained under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996^{11.“the 1996 Act”, hereinafter}, as there is no agreement having any arbitration clause, executed between the parties, placed on record.

To a specific query from the Court as to whether there is even an averment in the petition that the parties have entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause, Mr. Shivam Raghuvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any such averment. He submits that the “difficulty” being faced by his client is that his client does not have any copy of the contract between his client and the NHAI but has been told that possibly the contract may contain an arbitration clause.

A petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act cannot be maintained on such a presumption. In fact, there is not even a whisper of an averment in this petition that any such arbitration agreement between the parties may even possibly be in existence.

This petition cannot, therefore, lie under Section 9 of the 1996 Act on the basis of the material contained in the petition and the documents filed therewith.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Liberty stands reserved, however, to the petitioner, to approach this Court with the appropriate material if it becomes available.