ORDER : In this petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 25.07.2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru. In order to appreciate petitioner’s grievance, few facts need mention, which are stated infra: A tender was floated by respondent for construction of a hotel viz., Ritz Carlton Hotel in Bengaluru. The contract for construction of the hotel was awarded to the petitioner and as per the final payment certificate issued by respondent to the petitioner, it was entitled to a sum of Rs.98,54,97,854/out of which an amount of Rs.92,51,42,207/-was paid by the respondent on 31.10.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that as per final payment certificate, the respondent is liable to make payment of an amount of Rs.6,03,55,646/to the petitioner. The respondent failed to pay the outstanding amount. Thereupon the petitioner was constrained to issue a demand notice on 28.09.2017 under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short). The petitioner thereafter, initiated corporate insolvency resolution process against respondent under Section 9 of the Code. The petitioner also invoked the arbitration clause as contained in the Letter of Acceptance. The respondent entered appearance and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) before the Tribunal seeking reference to Arbitration. The Tribunal allowed the Interlocutory Application filed by the respondent and rejected the petitioner’s application by an order dated 25.07.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter of the proceeding under Section 9 of the Code could not be referred for arbitration. It is further submitted that even though arguments on application under Section 9 of the Code were heard, yet the arguments were passed on merits and even the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Code was rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner do not have the remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in ‘FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD. VS. JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.,’, (2011) 8 SCC 333 , ‘SUMITOMO CORPORATION VS. CDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions of Supreme Court in ‘FUERST DAY LAWSON LTD. VS. JINDAL EXPORTS LTD.,’, (2011) 8 SCC 333 , ‘SUMITOMO CORPORATION VS. CDC FINANCIAL SERVICES (MAURITIUS) LTD. & ORS.,’, (2008) 4 SCC 91 AND ‘KANDLE EXPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER VS. OCI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER’, CIVIL APPEAL NO.16611663/2018. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that in case of alternative remedy this court should not exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out that since the petitioner has already filed an application for appointment of arbitrator. In support of his submissions, reference has been made to a decision of Supreme Court in ‘BOOZ ALLEN AND HAMILTON INC. VS. SBI HOME FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS’, (2011) 5 SCC 532 . 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under: IA 72/2018 IN CP(IB) NO.2/2018 is filed by M/s Nitesh Estates Ltd. (Applicant/Corporate Debtor) u/s 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Regulationw Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 by seeking the following reliefs: a. Refer the parties for Arbitration pursuant to clause 5 of the letter of Acceptance dated 19.03.2008 and dismiss the above petition. b. Appoint either Bangalore arbitration Centre or such other person as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit as an Arbitrator to decide and determine the rights of the parties under the Letter of Acceptance dated 19.03.2008; and c. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity. 8. Shri.Dharmendra Chatur, the learned counsel for respondent/ petitioner while reiterating various averments as briefly stated supra, has strenuously opposed the instant application, on the ground that the remedy available under provisions of IBC is the only remedy, and the dispute raised in the instant application is not arbitrable as per Arbitration Agreement in question, while admitting its execution. And the respondent has a right of choice to choose an appropriate remedy and thus chose the remedy available under IBC by filing the Company petition. And the respondent has a right of choice to choose an appropriate remedy and thus chose the remedy available under IBC by filing the Company petition. Even though the respondent / petitioner has agreed to refer the matter for arbitration, it would not debar the respondent / petitioner from approaching this Tribunal to file company petition. The learned counsel has pointed relevant paras in the judgments, which are already referred to above, in support of his case. Therefore, he urged the Tribunal to dismiss the present company application and adjudicate the main company petition for initiation of CIRP. 4. From perusal of the submissions recorded in para 8 of the impugned order it is evident that arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner has only been heard by the Tribunal only on the application under Section 8 of the Act, 1996. However, the corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against the respondent under Section 9 of the Code itself has been dismissed. In other words, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing with regard to merits of the claim of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Code. Therefore, it is not necessary for this court to examine the rival contentions made on both the sides. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The tribunal is directed to decide the application preferred by the respondent under Section 8 of the Act as well as issue with regard to entertaining the proceeding under Section 9 of the Code by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.