K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 was filed by petitioner company alleging that it is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Technical grade pesticides and their intermediates. In pursuance of Tender Notice No. HIL/co/1/96 dated 1/2/1996 issued by the respondent in local daily newspapers for purchase of Fenvalerate Technical and cypermethrin Technical, the petitioner submitted its quotations/ offers alongwith earnest money deposits etc with the respondent vide letter Nos. BRL : 96:4538 and 39, both dated 20/2/1996. Tenders were opened on 23/2/1996 and petitioner company was declared successful tenderer. Respondent thereafter entered into negotiations with petitioner. Petitioner company gave its revised offers vide letter Nos. BRL : 96 : 4823 and 24, both dated 21/3/1996. After further negotiations, petitioner vide its letter dated 12/4/1996 offered to extend interest free credit for 70 days instead of 30 days with respect to cypermethrin Technical only. Petitioner also offered to respondent a special rebate of 2% on basic price of the supplies of Cypermethrin Technical only if payment was made by it within 70 days. The respondent agreed to pay interest on outstanding amount @ 24% p. a. in case of its faiflure to make payment within 30 days of the supply of Fenvalerate technical and 70 days of Cypermethrin Technical. It is further alleged that respondent placed purchase orders bearing Nos. CTM-4/ho/d/ll/fenvalerate/96-97 dated 13/5/1996 17/5/196 for 3,000 kgs of Fenvalerate Technical 90% Min and ctm-3/ho/d/14/96-97 dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996for 16 MTs of cypermethrin Technical 92% Min. on petitioner company. Pursuant to these orders, petitioner company manufactured and supplied said materials to the respondent against invoices, details whereof together with due date of payment (s) have been set out in sub para (x) of Para 7 of the petition thus:- ( 2 ) IT is stated that materials against said invoices were duly received by the respondent. In sub para (xi) of aforesaid para the details of part payments made by respondent have been given as under:- ( 3 ) THUS, a total sum of Rs. 2,33,69005. 00 was paid by the respondent after considerable delay. It is further alleged that invoices raised by petitioner company specifically provided that interest will be charged @ 24% - p. a If payment was not made within the stipulated period. Respondent was thus liable to pay amount of Rs. 12,90,210. 2,33,69005. 00 was paid by the respondent after considerable delay. It is further alleged that invoices raised by petitioner company specifically provided that interest will be charged @ 24% - p. a If payment was not made within the stipulated period. Respondent was thus liable to pay amount of Rs. 12,90,210. 00 towards interest on delayed payments calculated @ 24% p. a. in addition to further interest calculated at the same rateon said amount of Rs. 12,90,210. 00 from 17/1/ 1997 to 31/8/1999 which comes to Rs. 8,12,32. 00, making the total liability of respondent to the tune of Rs. 21,03,042. 00. It is stated that Tender documents dated 20/2/1996 containing general terms and conditions of tender, has arbitration clause by way of clause 23. The petitioner got a legal notice dated 16/4/1999 served upon the respondent requiring it to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator to decide the dispute regarding interest on delayed payments. In the reply dated 22/5/1999 the respondent denied its liability to pay interest and took the stand that alleged claim towards interest was not a dispute and,therefore,could not be referred to arbitration. It was prayed that sole arbitrator be appointed by court and dispute as to payment of interest on delayed payments be referred to him for adjudication. ( 4 ) IN the reply filed by respondent which does not deal with all the averments made in petition, it is alleged that purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996 pertains to supply of Fenvaierate Technical while purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996to supply of Cypermethrin Technical. Purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996does not contain any arbitration clause though an arbitration clause is mentioned in purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996 Therefore, arbitration. It is further alleged that arbitration clause as contained in purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996 does not cover the dispute sought to be referred to arbitration. Both the purchase orders clearly reveal that there was no agreement to pay interest on delayed payments, if any, by the respondent. It is also alleged that the invoices raised by petitioner cannot bind the respondent as to payment of interest and/or the rate thereof. It is emphatically denied that respondent is liable to pay the amount claimed by way of interest on delayed payments. ( 5 ) I have heard Sh. Ajay Gupta for petitioner and sh. Ashok K. Gupta for respondent and have also been taken through the record. It is emphatically denied that respondent is liable to pay the amount claimed by way of interest on delayed payments. ( 5 ) I have heard Sh. Ajay Gupta for petitioner and sh. Ashok K. Gupta for respondent and have also been taken through the record. ( 6 ) IT has not been denied by the respondent that in pursuance of Tender Notice No. HIL/co/1/96 issued by it for purchase of Fenvalerate Technical and Cypermethrin technical, the petitioner company submitted its quotations/offers vide letter Nos. BRL 96 : 4538 and 39, both dated 20/2/1996 and on tenders being opened on 23/2/1996 the petitioner was declared a successful tenderer; after further negotiations the petitioner company vide its letter dated 12/4/1996 offered to extend interest free credit for 70 days in place of 30 days with respect to supply of Cypermethrine Technical only; pursuant to two purchase orders the petitioner supplied materials of the total amount of Rs. 2,34,49,668. 00 as detailed in sub para (x) of Para 7 of the petition and total payment of rs. 2,33,69,005. 00 was made on the dates noted in sub para (xi) of said Para of the petition. Photostat copies of tender document containing general terms and conditions in regard to Fenvalerate Technical are placed at pages 16 to 19 while with respect to Cypermethrine Technical at pages 23 to 26 on Part III file. Aforesaid purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996 in original is placed at pages 32 and 33 while purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996 at pages 34 and 35. Purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996as it stands does not contain arbitration clause as obtaining in purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996. Submission advanced on behalf of respondent was that contract for supply of Fenvalerate Technical came to be concluded with the placing of said purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996 and as this order does not provide for arbitration, the part of relief seeking reference to arbitration of alleged dispute of interest on delayed payments in regard to supply of said material is misconceived. As is manifest from the endorsement made on top left hand side below the name of respondent printed in bold letters (Page 32) the said purchase order was placed by the respondent with reference to Tender enquiry No. CX/t, opened on 23/2/1996 In aforesaid photostat copy of Tender document (pages 16 to 19) against thecolumn of reference number on the top at page 16 below the name of respondent, CX/t/26 is printed. Thus there cannot be any manner of doubt that above purchase- order dated 13/5/1996/17/5/1996 was issued in continuation of said tender document (pages 16 to 19 ). Under the heading of general terms and conditions of Tender in said Tender document by way of clause No. 23 it is provided:- "any dispute arising between the supplier and MIL will be referred to the arbitration and mutually agreed arbitrator will be appointed for the purpose of entering into reference to the arbitration. All legal matters pertaining to the purchase order for delhi/ Rasayani/ Udyogmandal Unit shall be subject to the jurisdiction of delhi/panvel or Alibag courts /cochin, as the case may be. " ( 7 ) EVEN if said purchase order is silent about settlement of dispute between the parties through arbitration aforesaid clause No. 23 will be attracted. Submission referred to above in regard to part of relief being misconceived thus deserve to be repelled being without any merit. ( 8 ) FURTHER submission advanced on behalf of respondent was that as there was no agreement for payment of interest on delayed payment beyond 30/70 days from the date of receipt of materials between the parties, alleged claim towards interest on delayed payments cannot be said to be dispute which may be referred to arbitration. By way of clause No. 5 in Annexure I attached to aforesaid purchase order dated 13/5/1996 17/5/1996 it is provided that payment shall be made from the head office against 30 days credit from the date of receipt of material at the unit of respondent. Similar stipulation providing 70 days credit is incorporated in Annexure I attached to another purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996. Clause No. 5 seems to have been lifted from aforementioned Tender documents. Similar stipulation providing 70 days credit is incorporated in Annexure I attached to another purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996. Clause No. 5 seems to have been lifted from aforementioned Tender documents. Admittedly, payments in regard to supplies of both the materials had not been made within 30/70 days of the making of deliveries thereof to the respondent.-There was no occasion to have fixed 30/70 days credit limit if payment of interest was not to be made on outstanding amount. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the submission advanced on behalf of respondent that claim for payment of interest on delayed payments is not a dispute covered by the arbitration clause of said Tender documents as also purchase order dated 20/5/1996 23/5/1996. Dispute regarding payment of interest on delayed payments raised by the petitioner company requires to be adjudicated by an arbitrator to be appointed by the court. ( 9 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, petition is allowed. Justice P. K. Bahri (Retd) is appointed as sole arbitrator for deciding the disputes noted in sub paras (xiv) and (xvi) of Para 7 of the petition. Arbitrator will fix his own fee which will be shared equally by both the parties. He will make and publish the award in accordance with law. ( 10 ) LET a copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the arbitrator immediately for information.