Amit Mahajan DECISION
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an order dated 14.03.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned order') declining to refer the parties to arbitration.
2. The respondent has filed a suit [CS(COMM) No. 286/2020 captioned M/s Northex Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Inox Wind Ltd.] for recovery of an amount of ` 17,31,386/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. It is the respondent's case that it had provided logistics services to the appellant and raised invoices for the work performed. The amount sought to be recovered by the respondent is in respect of sixteen unpaid invoices raised during the period 22.02.2018 to 16.03.2020.
4. The appellant had filed an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act praying that the parties be referred to arbitration. The learned Commercial Court rejected the said application in terms of the impugned order.
5. The principal controversy that needs to be addressed is whether, prima facie, an arbitration agreement exists between the parties which covers the disputes raised by the respondent.
6. It is the appellant's case that the invoices were raised by the respondent pursuant to Work Orders issued by the appellant from time to time and the said Work Orders included an arbitration clause.
7. The respondent disputes the same. Whilst the respondent acknowledges that the appellant had issued certain Work Orders, it disputes that those Work Orders pertained to the logistical services, which are subject matter of the suit [CS(COMM) No. 286/2020].
8. The respondent claims that the unpaid invoices related to the work performed pursuant to agreements evidenced by exchange of e-mails. The respondent states that the appellant had, by e-mails, called upon it to quote the prices for performing certain services and the respondent had communicated the same by e-mails. The appellant had conveyed its acceptance by e-mails as well. The respondent states that no Work Orders were issued by the appellant in respect of those logistic services rendered by it.
9. The appellant relies on certain Work Orders, which were admittedly issued after the respondent had raised the invoices.
10. The learned Commercial Court had examined some of the invoices and had found that the said invoices did not relate to the Work Orders as claimed by the appellant. The appellant takes an exception to the said reasoning. According to the appellant, the learned Commercial Court had referred to incorrect Work Orders. The appellant claims that it had placed several Work Orders on record and each of the invoices could be traced to a Work Order.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. There is merit in the appellant's contention that the logistics services which are covered under the sixteen unpaid invoices are traceable to certain Work Orders. The learned Commercial Court had thus erred in proceeding on the basis that there were no Work Order covering the services as mentioned in the unpaid invoices in question. However, it is apparent that the Work Orders relied upon by the appellant were issued after the invoices have been raised.
13. The learned Commercial Court had referred to an invoice dated 01.06.2019 relating to logistics services from "UNA TO ROHIKA" and had found that the same was not relatable to Work Order dated 29.01.2019. It is the appellant's case that the said invoice related to the Work Order dated 13.07.2020. Clearly, there is a considerable period between the issuance of the invoice and the Work Order relied upon by the appellant. I........