Facts & Background:

• The Petitioner was a consortium comprising M/s JSC OGCC KazStoryService, a Kazakhstani company, and KazStoryService Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
• The Respondent was M/s GAIL (India) Ltd., a public sector company in India that awarded the contracts for pipeline laying and terminal works in different segments (spreads) of the Dabhol-Bangalore Pipeline Project.
• The consortium was formed under an agreement dated 01.07.2010 to execute Pipeline Laying and Terminal Works for the Dabhol–Bangalore Pipeline Project, which the respondent awarded.
• The dispute arose because the Petitioner alleged that the Respondent failed to provide essential requirements like construction rights, necessary engineering inputs, and work fronts, which led to significant delays. The Petitioner claimed that these delays, caused solely by the Respondent, entitled it to compensation for extended stay and additional works.
• The Petitioner submitted claims to the Respondent for compensation due to delays, which the Respondent rejected.
• Consequently, the Petitioner invoked the conciliation clause, which was also rejected. Following this, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause to seek appointment of a sole arbitrator, but the demand received no response from the Respondent.
• Due to the Respondent's non-response, the Petitioner filed applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Supreme Court of India, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
  
  

Main Issue:

1. Does the claim for extended stay compensation give rise to an arbitrable dispute under Clause 59 of the contract? (Paragraph 10)
2. Is the petitioner entitled to payment for additional work undertaken during the execution of the contracts? (Paragraph 11)