ARB No.75 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. ARB No.75 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.01.2009 Ravinder Paul Singh ....Petitioner Versus Essar Oil Limited. ....Respondent. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is, whether or not, there was a binding contract between the parties incorporating an arbitration clause. In order to invite the Court’s attention to a binding contract, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the communication dated 17.10.2003, placed on the record of this petition as Annexure P-2. Annexure P-2 incorporated the following clause: -- “Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly signed as token of your acceptance of the above terms, on receipt of which we shall draw a formal Agreement spelling out in addition to the above the detailed terms and conditions on which the R.O. would operate.” It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that on the ARB No.75 of 2008 2 receipt of the communication dated 17.10.2003, the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions incorporated therein, and as such, the letter dated 17.10.2003 should be treated as an offer, and the consequential acceptance of the terms and conditions depicted in the aforesaid letter, must be treated as the acceptance at the hands of the petitioner. It is not possible for me to accept the aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from the part of the letter dated 17.10.2003, extracted hereinabove, that no formal/final terms and conditions of agreement had been crystallised between the petitioner and the respondent, and as such, no binding contract could be accepted to have arisen between the rival parties. In view of the above, it is not possible for this Court to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator on the basis of one of the conditions incorporated in the letter dated 17.10.2003. It would be unfair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if reference is not made to the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this behalf, it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Mrs. Florable Skinner and others Vs. Jai Bajrang Kala Mandir Ram Lila Mandal, Hisar, AIR 1980 Punjab and Haryana 284. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement reveals, that it has authoritatively been concluded by this Court, that in case there is an offer by one person, and the aforesaid offer is accepted by another person (to whom such an offer had been made), the acceptance of the offer leads to a binding contract between the parties. It is not possible ARB No.75 of 2008 3 for me to accept, that the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Part of the letter dated 17.10.2003, extracted hereinabove, reveals that even the terms and conditions of the contract had yet not been finalised between the rival parties, and that, the finalisation of the terms and conditions was subject to the acceptance of the preliminary conditions brought to the notice of the petitioner through the communication dated 17.10.2003. Accordingly, it is not possible for me to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the judgement rendered by this Court in Mrs. Florable Skinner’s case (supra). Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge 30.01.2009 sk.