ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitral Tribunal in terms of Clause 95 of the General terms and conditions of the agreement. 2. The petitioners case is that pursuant to the tender notice issued by the General Manager (Transport), Central Coalfields Limited dated 28/29.4.2003 for loading and transportation of coal from KDH OC Quarry bed stock of N.K. Area to Feeder Breaker, the petitioner submitted his tender which was accepted by the respondent-CCL and a Letter of Intent was issued vide letter dated 31.5.2003/3rd June, 2003. The work was started at KDH Project N.K. Area with effect from 9th June, 2003. The petitioner commenced the work and the Project Officer vide Officer letter dated 16.7.2003 informed about the approval of 80% provisional payment and subsequently payments were made. It is stated that the works were completed. However, the quantum of work offered against the various items was highly disproportionate. Again in July, 2003, the quantum offered against Item No. 1B was disproportionate. In August, 2003, a meeting was held on 18.8.2003 under the Chairmanship of C.M.D., Central Coalfields Limited and the representatives of Coal Transportation Agencies including the petitioner wherein it was agreed in the meeting that CISC (petitioner) has to do transport from KDH surface miner faces to KDH siding, route distance 2-3 kms. Further case of the petitioner is that it deployed 26 HYVA vehicles (10 wheelers) equivalent to 46 numbers of 6 wheelers coal tippers at the KDH project. Due to failure of KDH project to expose coal and to extract coal by surface miners, coal tippers of the petitioner remained grossly underutilized causing huge loss. The petitioners further case is that respondent did not come forward to execute the agreement till December, 2003 for a period of six months and as such, the payment of the bills got delayed frequently and 20% of the payable amount has been withheld by the respondent. Because of the quantum of work offered to the petitioner against various items was highly disproportionate, the petitioner suffered enormous loss. Because of the quantum of work offered to the petitioner against various items was highly disproportionate, the petitioner suffered enormous loss. Moreover, payments of bills have frequently been delayed and about 20% of the payable amount has been withheld by CCL to coerce the petitioner to execute the agreement for a period of three years at wide variance to the terms and stipulation of N.I.T. payment of bills. Because of illegal and unjustified payment, the petitioner invoked Clause 95 of the general terms and condition of contract and raised a claim before the Director and requested him to settle and decide the dispute within 30 days. In spite of claim preferred by the petitioner, the competent authority failed to meet the terms of the contract and no Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed to decide the claim. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant application purported to be under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act). 3. The respondents filed their counter affidavit wherein the maintainability of the application under Section 11(6) of the Act has been vehemently challenged. The respondents case is that the contract in question was for a period of one year with provision to rebate on rate applicable for second and third year. The petitioner became successful tenderer in quoting the rate for three years and so the work was awarded for three years. The respondents further case is that information was conveyed vide letter dated 17.6.2003 for sanction of release of 80% Page 1363 provisional payment to the petitioner till execution of the agreement for transportation of coal. The petitioner did not turn up for the agreement. As such, again in December, 2003 the respondent- Company informed the petitioner to turn up for agreement failing which payment may be stopped. The respondents further case is that the work was started from June 2003 for a period of three years. The payment was released limited to 80% of the rate pending finalisation of agreement till November, 2003 and thereafter payment was stopped from December, 2003. The petitioner again did not turn up for the agreement and stopped the work in February, 2004. It is a specific case of the respondent that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent containing arbitration clause and as such this application is not maintainable. 4. The petitioner again did not turn up for the agreement and stopped the work in February, 2004. It is a specific case of the respondent that there is no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent containing arbitration clause and as such this application is not maintainable. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. The only question that falls for consideration is whether any arbitration agreement exists between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the work in question allotted to the petitioner by the respondent. 6. Section 2(b) defines the work "arbitration agreement" which means an agreement referred to in Section 7 of the said Act. Section 7 of the Act gives full definition and meaning of the term "arbitration agreement". It reads as under: 7. Arbitration agreement (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, where contractual or not. (2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. (3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing. (4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in - (a) a document signed by the parties; (b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement; or (c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. (5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make the arbitration clause part of the contract. 7. From bare perusal of Section 7 of the Act, it is clear that arbitration agreement means an agreement by parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. It shall, however, be in writing. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement. It shall, however, be in writing. Section 7 further provides that an arbitration agreement shall be deemed to be in writing if it contains in a document signed by the parties, in exchange of letters, telex, telegram or other means of telecommunication which provide a record thereof; or an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other. 8. In the light of the aforesaid provision, I shall now examine whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties in any of the mode provided in Section 7 of the Act. 9. It is the admitted case of the parties that although pursuant to the tender notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner submitted its tender and a Letter of Intent was issued for execution of work, but no written agreement was entered into between the parties. The question then arises whether the documents relied upon by the parties constitute an arbitration agreement. The petitioner annexed the tender notice along with general terms and condition forming part of the agreement, which contains Clause 95 relating to resolution of dispute through arbitration. The respondents have not denied the fact that tender notice was issued along with general terms and condition forming part of the contract. A copy of the tender notice along with the annexed general terms and condition governing the contractual transportation and loading in the area of the Coalfields Limited has been annexed as Annexures 4 and 4/1 to the said application. Clause 95 of the general terms and condition reads as under: All disputes arising out of this contract, for which no specific provision has been made in the agreement, shall be referred to Director and the decision of the Director shall be final and binding on the contractor. Such reference, however, shall in no way affect the execution of the work. 10. The General Manager(Transport) of the respondent Central Fields Limited vide memo dated 31.5.2003 while requesting the petitioner to start work of loading and transportation of coal informed him that if the petitioner fails to start the work then action will be taken as per the provisions of General Terms and Conditions. 10. The General Manager(Transport) of the respondent Central Fields Limited vide memo dated 31.5.2003 while requesting the petitioner to start work of loading and transportation of coal informed him that if the petitioner fails to start the work then action will be taken as per the provisions of General Terms and Conditions. A copy of the said letter dated 31.5.2003 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the said application. The letter reads as under: Central Coalfields Limited Darbhanga House: Ranchi. No. GM(T)/CT/NK/2003/471 Dt.31st May03 _______________ 3/6 To, The Calcutta Industrial Supply Corporation, FM C Fortuna, 3rd Floor, Unit-A7, 234/2A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata- 700 020. Dear Sir, Ref: Tender Notice No. GM(T)/CT-10/NK/2003/384 dated 28th/29th April03 Sub: Tender for transportation of coal from KDH OC Quarry Bed Stock of NK Area to Feeder Breaker & KDH Siding. As already informed over telephone, you are hereby requested to start the work of loading and transportation of coal from KDH OC Quarry Bed Stock of NK Area to Feeder Breaker & KDH Siding against the NIT referred to above, immediately failing which action will be taken as per provision of Page 1365 General Terms & Conditions. It was personally informed to Shri Pradeep Agarwal, Breaker. For commencement of the work, you may contact CGM(NK)/Dakra. Yours faithfully, Sd/-31/5 General Manager(Transport) Copy to: 1. CGM(NK)/Dakra. 11. It is, therefore, clear that the General Terms and Conditions was the part of the notice issued by the respondents inviting tender for transportation work. It is well settled that any notice inviting tender is an invitation to an offer and once offer by way of tender is accepted by the authority, it becomes concluded contract. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the General Terms and Conditions is part of the agreement, which contains Clause 95, quoted here in above, which is an arbitration clause. 12. In a similar case, in the case of "Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Baliapur Coal Depot and Anr. "(2003)1 JLJR-586, this Court observed: From perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it appears that the parties decided to get their dispute referred and it has to be resolved by the General Manager (Sales) and it was agreed that his decision should be final. Ltd. and Anr. v. Baliapur Coal Depot and Anr. "(2003)1 JLJR-586, this Court observed: From perusal of the aforesaid Clause, it appears that the parties decided to get their dispute referred and it has to be resolved by the General Manager (Sales) and it was agreed that his decision should be final. Section 2 of the Arbitration Act defines the term "arbitration agreement" which means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not. It is well settled that normally in all the contracts Arbitration Clause is inserted so that parties to the agreement, in case of any dispute or difference, may sort out their dispute before the authority without approaching the court of law. As noticed above, Clause 23 is very clear that in case of any dispute or differences between the parties to the agreement the decision of the General Manager(Sales) shall be final. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order passed by the court below directing that the dispute and differences, if any, shall be resolved by the General Manager(Sales) of the appellant-company cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and dispute between the parties is referred to the Director of the Respondents. The Director shall decide the dispute within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.