Triveni Pattern Glass Ltd. Vs Triveni Glass Ltd. & Anr.

¶1

$~ 96
* IN THEGCOURFDLAW
sn:24 i fc e oD at th 05 2 July,
+ /05 42 ARBP .
G LSAEN VP TRI P eti onr .
roug:T h Mr. Mkl Gupta, Senior Advocate u
with M r .Vibho Gag,M. Sum r i tMshr a ndMs.
Kr,Advocte. ks hDi a
s ver
SL AVEN G T R I & ORS . dtR e spo n. s
roug:T h M r . O ma Ahd, M r .Vik a m S h
Mr. Ishan Gaur, Mr. Simranj e t and Mr. Rtk i
cesf o h,Adv ar Rt Kum - 1.
ctefR o ,dv al junP A M r . - 2.
cefR o ,Adv t Gpsh a . T u M r - 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUTICYG
JUDGEMNT
JYOTI SNGH,.(RAL)
1. his T etonfld pbaP r (6)uSc 1
the Arbitration and Conciliation A
t bile A r s o e juic adt o r sint e bwnhar. te u isp d
2. Facts to the n rx te lvant and as av e d in the pe er on are ti t ha a
ine TBu s ansfe Agr r mnt ( e ‘BTA ’) was xcutd e twn R e b dt spo ne
sPL( t ilMerch andv 1 N o . ‘NMPL ’) 31fr 29.0 n o le nds a
dcg v pi y transfe oul
Plant located at Konaguem, West God d wri D a rc, Rs ti jmundry, a
dhra PesAn , as a going concern on ‘as ithe

¶2

Page 1 of 15

¶3

said BTA along with alcurentstock, invetory etc. Respondt No. 2, the Mangi Directo of Respondt No. 1, stod as					, in the said	Plant .
personal guarnto as staed in Article 9.7 of BTA					and alsoexcutd the
BTA on behalf of Respondt No. 1			. Parties to the BTA agredtha they
wil endavour	toensur	thaerisnoduptfservic,l t.
from the date ofexcution of BTA tilclosure on 31.0829,whic						date
was extndil30.129byuqAmohBT
3. It is averd by the Petionrthaefctiv from01.429, al
operatins fhPlanticudgrwmatel ndsockwertanfdi
favour NMPL from the sale procedsandincdetl befts wer on acount of NMPL,	i.eprdcs		- in - intersofhPad			al benfits
whic wer to beregulay remitd by TGL in favour of NMPL.						This
inteo of the parties was			also incorpated in the		Sole	Seling and
Distrbuon Agremnt (		‘SDA	’)date23.0419		An Adenum No. 1
date26.0419wsloexcutdbnRspNo.1 andNMPL,
whicformpateBTA.
4. It is furthe averdtha p			ursant to	thes agremnts and upon
incorpatfhePtionr,			aTripteAsgnm			‘T ’)
wasexcutd betwn the Petionr, Respondt No. 1 and						NMPL on
08.5219, wherby NMPL asigned alits rights and inters						acruing
under BTAandSDAinfavourthePionr adRespont						becam
confirmg party to the TA aceptd monies from the Petionr and alsoexcutd threAdenums,			Postexcution of TA, Respondt No. 1
whicalsofrmpt BTA.Uonreciptfsdatmof and
in perfomanc of thes agremnts, Respondt No. 1 alsoexcutd
Tripate Agremntdate21.0with GAIL (India) Limted,

¶4

Page 2 of 15

¶5

registd Sale Deddate05.2for land measuring 26.5 acres
includg built up struce andcertifadate20.confirmg
surendofalic,pmt.
5. Petionr averstha it ma andto hirdpates onitsbehalfot direclyan througNMPL towards considerat rugofthePlanfcivrom01.429unde		de various payments to Respondt No. 1
acknowledgmtrepsntaio by		Respondt N.1		thamounswil
be rpaid.Howv,nymtskfc
ledgrs for the period01.429 to31.02, mainted by the
Petionrdaycusfb,mR.4360				- is dueto
thePionrfm	Respondt N.	2ason31.0excludigtrf
18% peranum.Ddotic wsuedbythPeionr20.93
but payment was not made 02.13 admiteexcution of BTA,SDA and TA. Ther being an		albeit Respondt in their replydate
arbitonagemin the BTA,Petionr nvkdthearbioncluse
Article 24and seta noticeda21.03caling upoResndt
apoint a mutalyagrebl Arbitao withn 30 days failng whic
Petionr would takerecous tolega remdis, howevr, Respondt
failed to agreto the apointme, compeling the Petionr to file the
presnt io.
6. At the outse, learnd counselapering on behalf of Respondt No. 1 takes a prelimnayobjectin to the maintbly of this petion
refing to thedetail reply		filed. It is urged	tha TAwasexcutd on
08.5219contaigClusewhrb
theparis , wherby patis under TAoBshal befirtovdamcly bewnthprisand		exprsly agredthnydispuamre

¶6

Page 3 of 15

¶7

y uponliretds fa,wh BTA l wi e r bfdto
a sleA ot bi r , to b eap ointd bym ut l c on sef ther s ie pa .
onr, RP eti dt No. 1 and n spo e NMPL . Thus, a di l pute ar s sng under i
BTA w er govnd byClause 15in T A and byvi rt u e o f,Phnr eti
was bliged ot aem p l cb i utnf o res h et pu b s di ore fsting
to cat of v oin on. Having not taken it b ar cous to the m re ndtory a
pre - tl iar bechns m , P etionr caph sCo ur nde Section
(6) 1 of the 6 Act 9 1 and being pmatu, pe re on ti rv to be d es
me dis . It is emphasised that the exp
t h e n agrmbw the s i p a rkg ar v onit b would only be a
second step in case the micble res a lutin o failed. In suort of p this plea,
DvBCn f jgm rnd cousithle a
Welspun Enterpis Ltd. v. NC Ltd., 20 SC OnLie Del 3296 ,
in e rwhg am x sil r Dp ute n o Rlas, theC ourld t ha
if the on agr it b ar mnt e quis parties to exhaust the re pre - fnc re
du and oc e p r a in n ge as or oti eg n micble s a lmn of di et pute, s
right to re fh di t pue sto ar nwould ariseonly i b rpris have tea f
xhaustd the said p e du and r oc e vn in ca e e wh s r such proce e
consume s cat n g si fm e ,u o facin t in kev ot b ar wuld ise
kdw. b piv ch u ersonly a ft
7. Per contra, Mr. Mkl Gupta, u arnd Senior Coul e sel n erig on ap
behalf of the Ponr eti ubmit s ha th t r is no merit in the p e mnay ir el
bjectin raised by R o dt No. 1. It is urged n spo e ha if a party who has t
ui claims en g ginst the other party to the a on agr it b ar mnt and e
makes an aemp to t micbly s a l the di et pute but for some reason the s
h oter paysimlbc k nd w, ta o e rguh

¶8

Page 4 of 15

¶9

the first party wilbe precludfrom takingrecous toarbiton as
mechanis for dispute resolutin, as this		would be	behigly unfair and
detrimnalohsfpygv.T,cbu
by RespondtN.1haumrlno pty		can	invokearbtl
it exhaust the pre evnthougi maybesoprecibd nthedispureoltn causgred	- refnc procedu ofamicble setlmn/co
uponbetwharis.
8. To butresthis plea, Mr. Gupta r	this plea, Mr. Gupta relis on		the judgments		of the
Co - ordinate Benchs of this Court *Private Limted v. Solar Energy Corpatin of India Limted, ARB. P.*		in *Contium Power Trading (TN)*
*562/04,*	deci on17.052 aslo	*Sri GaneshEgWokv.*
*Northen RailwysdA,204SCOLD895*				, wherin	it s
heldtha	pre - arbiton dispute resolutinmechanis canot be read to
precludthaisfomnvkgrb		,if parteshvinclyrd
toreslvhdiputangivenstuao		askingtheprowaitfr
setlmn talks to culminate could be		counterpdiv.		Therfo,
n - exhaustion of	the remdy to resolv the disputeamicbly canot
preclud	a party toaproch the Court for	apointme of Arbitao
invokgthejursdcn	Section1(6)	of 196 Act	.MrGuptarelis
onjudgmetof theSuprm Cotin		*B andT AGv. Minstryof Denc,*
*(204) 5 SC 358,*	wher the SupremCotrefing tothejudgmen of
the Suprem Court in	*Geo Miler & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Rajsthn Vidyut*
*Utpadn NigmLtd., (20)14 SC643,*		heldtawheranyprticul
facts oniuehbdrmw ofeachs andwithrefncto hesubtancrhetnform action. If anirgemtohpsarticulme,whos f

¶10

Page 5 of 15

¶11

actionwlbesdhvr.Iu,op toaprty ositghand otfileanplictofr setlmnofdisput of hisrgtwchaben ifrgdwthlmaon perid
alowhisrgtbexnudy lapoftimher,w
another cusfidlp			Section of 196
Act for establihmng tha ifprysecludfomtakingrs Seco1nautof		,whicasnotelv.Trgum
n - exhaustion of pre		- arbitlmechanis ofamicble resolutin of
dispute, then in a givencasasituonmay arisewh disputeare not
imedatlyrsovnbthe improcdulnaes,thi under Sctio1becomsti baredun Article137 ofthe Limaon
Act, 1963.
9. Withouprejdc		aforesid cnt	, Mr. Guptasbmi tha
evn otherwis	Respondt No. 1 is	factuly in	coret in staingtha
Petionr hasnot takerecous to pre		- arbitl proceduof resolving the
disputeamicbly asenvisagd in		the arbiton clause inasmuch as
Petionr hugsDemandNoticd20.93 hacled uponth
Respondt toamicbly resolv the dispute by making the outsandig
payment mentiod therin sotha parties could part waysamicbly.
Howevr, in responthero, and madeserioualegtionsaginst the Petionr of cheating and fraud		Respondt compltydeni theliabty
with athrea okcust rimnalo.Thef,			it canot be said
tha Petionrdi not exhaust		the first step of	atempingamicble
setlmn bforapchigCude.
10. Heard lnSeior CunsforthePionradlerncou
fortheRspnd.
ARB.P42/05			Page 6of 15

¶12

1 Since a prelimnayobjectin is raised to the maintblyof this
petion, it neds to beadjuicte at the outse.			Broadly understo		the
objectin to the maintbly of the petion istha Petionr has not
exhaustd the pre - refnc procedu of resolving the disputeamicbly
befor invkgatdhustepionsremau.Todcith rival contes,wuld besfto retharbioncluse,wh
is extracdhun,		-	-
*—Article 24* *- Dispute Roln*
In theevn t of any dispute or diferncs arisng betwn the Parties *herto iucng*s,ma this Agremnt or the respctiv rights andobligatns of the Parties herto,their nfocmtherund,it shalbe firsteldamicby througdiscnaoultbewnhPartis. Ifhedisput not resolvd then it would berefd to Arbitaon by apointme of sole Arbitao inacordne with the provisn of the Arbitaon and Concilat, A196.Thearbiton wdmyarbito shl finaldbgothePrsan igobeund thry and to act acordingly. Theawrd shalbeenforcabl in compet courts flaw.ThepndAbi Arbitaon procedings shalbecondute in English langue. The awrd shalbe in writng.Whe any dispute is underarbiton,excpt for the maters under dispute the Parties shalcontiue toexrcis their remaing respctiv rights andfuli their remaing respctiv obligatns under this Agremnt during the pendcy of thearbit procedings. 15. ThatePartishebyagrtheyshalworktgehoreslv any disputehamyariseundthis agremno underth BTAand i theevnttha dispute do arise, whic parties are unable to setl amicble, the dispute shalberefd toarbiton as per Arbitaon and CociltA.196Tha te orundeth BusineTraf Agemnticlud tsAdenum Ishal berefd to a solearbito to be apointedby mutal conset of al the threparties and the place/stvnu of Arbitaon shalbe New Delhi. “		disputearngofhemt
12. Indisputably, he clause to reslvanydipuhmTA08.5219	envisag	sthaepartis w		worktge	BTA

¶13

Page 7 of 15

¶14

ate d 31 29.0 micbly and only when parties are unable to s a l, et
pute ha s di l b e r fd to ar ns per i b 6 Act 9 1 . Thely questi on
t ha arie for c s derat b i s on for this Court is w e tr P he onr is eti
ud lp reco mfgs in k ta rb oi nhea tsc ofvi n gtke
us t re c o le icb am nof s t h et pu ar is dgb n w hparties. et
he Twr ns a toie dntahis qu Cor ti use ha bn
BfCur son Dv th by deci Welspun (supra).
13. It is p to mei n r te tio n ha the D t vson Bench was i ng an ec id
l u ape drS n ti oc 137 )( 6 Act 9 1 whe ,r aln gsid toc
rde o s pabyth e lnd ar g SiJue o f is h t Cur dmng a peon ti
du e r Sctio34 of n 6 Act1 9 t r ns ia gbl d w a te718 The3 .02
rd s aw d n re b y rit f2:1 bymaj o n A al t rbi a compr n Tusg i
of thr e brs. While majority was of the view me ha the claims of t
Welspun in the final bi w l e r baed by l r aon, m ti m norty i br me
rsd acont xp e y viwlguh JS
ta hclimsw er b ady l n ao t m i sce ar onws it b t no d cme
n ith re wsy afomd u t en yp a o f h il b, scamed.
It is thi s co veywnt r i the D h vsonBench was ca i ed upon to l de
and in this conex, the D t vson Bench i xamind w e tr in light of the he
ute p is d nmo lrechais d toby agr e h e ptri s,ea o d flaon ti m
would n po mec io to the parties exhausting the agr r d e pre - fnc re
duoc e p r mdis e /r ngtos i a ljhSpC u v m . R efr d
also this Court, cludg the judgment in in Geo Miler (supra) and of this
Court in Alstom SyeIndiaPv.LZfrpjc . Ltd . in
P(C) 35 O.M 21 / , ci on 3 de , the 1.02 vson BenchD i
eld h t aperid fl o n o am tifre ing t hdipue stoarin bcot

¶15

Page 8 of 15

¶16

comen tilparties haveexhaustd	the pre - refnc procedu as
provide in the dispute resolutin clause.	In this backdrop, the Court also
deci thisueofobligatnf a partyto takerecous t pre	- refnc
mechanis, fprovdin thearbclus	,befor invkgat
and heldtha i f thearbiton clauserequis the parties toenga in
negotias rto aemptoreslvth dispuenmediato/cl,
right torefth dispueto arbinwould ariseonlyafterngois
foramicble setlmn have failed and parties haveexhaustd their
endavours tlhdispu.	Relvant prghsofjudmae
asfolw: -
— In AlstomSyeIndia Pvt.Ld SingleBchoftsCuradcnie hqowtprd of limtaon forrefing the dispute toarbiton wouldcomen *fro t*hedailufn.ThCrtdinf	v. Z*ilon*IfrapjectsPv.Ltd,a
*fromthedailufmeon.ThCrtdecisonf the Supr*em Court in RajsthnVidyuUpNgmL.	Geo Miler & Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Cha *and*helsur:
—21. of exclusion of the period ofnegotia, while computing the period of limtaon for thepurose of 196 Act. Mr. Sethi had, withsomejutifcan, soghtcapilzeonthisobervan t *conted ha,bslrAiTuony have exclud thpriongwas wer ngotia.ThldArb iunacot,sbm Mr. Sethi, havepostned the cause of action to 27 20, whentforsamdil. 2. Ifonewrto readth firsentc ipar 28of GeMil divorce from the rest of thepargh,perhas thissubmion might have meritd considerat. It is, howevr,trietha the judgmentsofCrae notberadlikstu.Eqay, word used bythSprmCo,injgalc due importance. A**par*gh in a judgment is to be read as a whole,*andtivse*c fahon,rlyg setcand overlking ths.Par 28of GeMilrceaygos nto that, reasonbl party would haveabndoe the eforts at setlmn, isdetrmn,h causeof actinwould bedm toarise fom	No doubt, the opening senten th Septmbr once the ”breaking point‘,

¶17

Page 9 of 15

¶18

t h a de, f o r e ing t h dispue to ar b i n.Th es wo r dae clear, u nambigos and neqivocal. They u ntirly su e p ort the vi e w, xpr s dby t h e lar ndA bi Trun a l, th e causof action, in the prsnt case, would be e de m to arise on 7^th Sptmbr e 20 , being the date on w h ic e f orts at med i aton

¶19

between the parties ultimately f point‘, being the date on which a oe the e a b nd f orts at slmn, is et trmin, the cause of de action would b e m to arise from de t ha date,for fing the re dispute to ar b it on. Ths words are clear, e u nambigos and unequivocal.“

¶20

e mph as i d [ We onur with the c a foresid view. The period of laon for i m t f i ng tre hd s pu o ar b itncmel th p a ri e sv d nc ha u st x er ype - n c ref podu.I t h e ar b i onclus quis ret hparies toa engin eg ot as r t o aempt o slvth r e di s pute in medl, the right to iaton / c f the di re s pute to ar b it on would arise only after the as for an eg otin micble a lmn have failed and the parties have et s xhaustd their e ndavors to e an / thdi p uc gm resol v Svral courts in various dec e is on have co ns i t ely held t ha pre fnc re ar b it on me /sl procd i a t o n es are quid to run re the fu l course. Even in ca s e whr such proc e es have consumed a s i g n fcat per o df ,h courts t im e h av e ld th a e caus o fac t in o e tin v o kh ar bw o u l d is e nyaft r s u choea pvcblyi r n dw.kebr o In N a tionl Highways Au t horiy v. Piv C esr og ruci Ltd., a on s t Single Bench of this Court consir a case w de tr the di he s pute had n peb e n dig res o lutin bfor a co e consi tem t iued by the ponr eti (N a tionl Highways Auhoriy). The t fnc of the di re s pute to a was noti te co m a prtof t h e di s p u tin caus; eol r t h e co m had bnst upi e n a ad hoc fa shion rh te d i s puteh a rin sedug the pfomanc of the er ra in question. The proceon tc s for micble a res o lutin of di s pute cotiued for almost six years b n for it was e lict xpy red .Tj h ,a fis pu te r wd oa bi n . I the ar bitl procdings, an e bjectin was raised o t ha the claims wr e ba r ed by l i m t aon. It was co n t ed t ha the period of laon i m t comen d f rthi g a l de wnu tsp h air feno to ref nco th e sam t oh e co.The Ai tm rbi t al Tun rjctd e the said c ont ei and found t ha the claims wr w e i thn the period of l i m t aon. The bitl ar a wrd was changd b le for this Court. The e learnd S iguo Jf ths Cp b wev as under:

¶21

Page 10 of 15

¶22

—20. On reading of the findings o di s cloe t ha the arguments of the ponr on the i eti ue of s l i m tao n re whunyfoc, as th e r i adgo ac fnt byhe A rbital Tu nhe V ods Ofc quan t iy wrnot i e uedon 26 s th March , 2 0 3and yetfu r t t he ue as to the revi s i son of the rates was under the active onsiderat f chpvylg m th May, 2 0 3, to 27 th April, 2 0 9, as the rdt had formed a spo ne te iC om f rei sng vhr ta es nd waig thfo rer vi s d ate to NHAI for rovl, and the r ap dt had also spo ne rd ape for b et hCo mie na t empo a micb l yrsov thi e ue. s The rdt rspo ne jctd the e p r o sal for rvisd rates only on e th April, 2 0 9, and thfo the c er ont ei of the p eti onr is t ha the cause of action began on 26 th March, 2 0 3, ca n ot be p t d. Ii ce a s etl d a w th n w et hp ar i e s acvel tiy to rsolv the di e s pute, then the cause of action for esoting to r arbitration cannot be said to hav The dec i son of the larnd Single Judge in e N a tionl Highways Au t horiy v. P es iv C r og ruci Ltd. on s t was upheld by a D i vson h ofBenc t is Courbyn o arde t9214 Th 0 8 .era n t lvxc of co nr th e said —24. The third condition concerns 25. As per NHAI the cause of action arose when v a r i ton ode r wdM 2 6, 0ei q uts ym for chan g 26. The larnd Single Judge has noted e t ha the larnd A e r bital Tribunal has dealt with the f a ctul aspect of this iue, w s ic h reaso n ig has bn verbatim noted in e par gh 19 of the cso. nedi mpug 27. P i thly s t aed t ha the larnd Single Judge has brought out e t ha after the vton o a r i de, r n ot i fyg change of quan ti es, was ued onMarch i s 2 6 ,0 3 part iesd cu th e vxd questi o nf i n w hatme r s h a d tornlei p c a yb t o he a. The l co n tr e arnd Single Judge has noted t ha the A r bital T ribunal h ds ct y o g a h eri vtno ds on March 26, 2 0 3 was not for an ntir e sdqu ain cre t y. The arnd Single Judge has noted l e ha the A t bital Tribunal has r brought out the impact of the iue of rev s i son of rates being cue. The l d i s arnd Single Judge has noted e t ha on April 27, 2 0 9, NHAIitself ha d forme ac te i om solv thimpar e s To pu ti ly,p the putwa noton thdi s ein sd qu a cr t y as per i cv a r t on; h ed isput c rth rev ne o i s o nf ra t es.I is no t h e casof NHAI t ha on a p rt iculdae i ty neqvoca lu closed the chapter on the rev i son of the rates leaving no fu r the

¶23

Page of 15

¶24

scope for any d is cuon and fu r the with rspct to said date e ftinwldr. e ocau s 28. The bjectins filed by NHAI show a o t oal c on fusi in the mind of NHAI btwn a cause of action and cause of action e acruin g. W hestfom p , vd qui d tore bpv s u tai nc l m,h e at rwoudmnhe

¶25

date on which the right to sue ac
e mph as i d [
It is nc s ary to note e t ha the C o rdinate Bench of this Court had
held that there was a clear distinc
prosecuting a claim and the —cause
ar b it
We are unable to onur with th c e a f o r si dre n g of the larnd e
Single Judge in Ravinder Kumar Verma v. B P T Ltd. Section 7 of the
A&C Act ly p s xpr e r ocibe the parties from s int ag any judcal i
dings in r e proc spct of di e s pute t ha are subjctma et r of lat coni
dings e proc xcpt wh e r in the e o p in of the party —such proceedi
are necessary for preserving his rig
lyxg ispuoarthe db ncm
s a r y pcn e - nc f re,hte podu qusi on ftakig re cous
to Section 1 of the A&C Act for ame of an p oi nt ar bi t o for
ing thoa vbd. res p
The n s ary question to be ac e es is w d r tr the period of he
l i m t a on fre gh d tis pu oartn cme bs or un pi
to the parties exhausting the agrd pre e - fnc p re dus. In our er oc
view, the answer is in the ngativ. If the period of l e i m t aon does not
men r ou i g ctl hp - arbiton esh pcvxud -
as hbn hld e i nvar o u s dec i - th e r isno ndfor pro e cingh te
mdy r eo f ar b itn gsthe bar o f lanp i m tro t mplein f o c
the pre - fnc p re r ocdu. We are unable to a e ept c t ha if the
ar b iton mqusg ep y tr f h e d is u ocn lat
for b e fing the same to re ar b it on, the period of laon would i m t
n p me o c r io to the parties exhausting the rmdy to r e solv the e
la.d is p ut e h r o g cn
The idea of medaton, i vn in ca e e of l s gaon, is it ncouragd in e
many countries. Austria, for xampl, provides methods of re e g ulatin
l i m taon perds m i t su pe no fch l i m t a o np er dbf
int ag court procdings. Poland e quis for re r upo of the int e
l i m taon per dc s - lit g aon me,h d
riod cap esen tirly up ocmen t of t h e md i a o nprc es . Th
p o s i tn in Hungary ap ers to be s i mlar. In Singapore, howvr, the e
med i aton proce s does not gnra l y e stne or pause the period po

¶26

Page 12 of 15

¶27

In the facts of the prsnt case, the A e r b it aon Clause s ly xpr e quid the parties to a re emp resolving the di t s pute and dirncs by fe m uta l ne g ois .I f h rto es lvhpuno dit yelfrui w i thn a period of one month from the date the same had arisen, the parties wr bound to e f the di re pute to their r s spctiv Chief e cutivs. The parties could e Ex f the di re s pute to ar b it on only if the cutvsa ld orn Ch ief Ex

¶28

Welspun was not xpctd to e datly ime i ns t ue the dispute res o lutin echanis on the C m mpletin Cer o fcaon being i ti ued on s 3 0.1 2 The l et r d ate 10. 9 2 ndcates i t ha the cvesy o nt r twn the parties had crystalized after 3b e 0.1 2 Howvr,it is also e thd10. bw lear fom9 2isn cpu t h e p a risnd the p a r i s d f le tos vr he a m.W i tn perod of thr months after r e cipt of the l e et r ate d 10. 9 2 , Welspun invoked the dispute res o lutin echanis and by a l m et r d ate 2 6 .1 0, m a de rqust for e t h eir spcvCh ie f Excuvso m t t e lvhdipu. to r es

¶29

It is not clear as and when the as beg otin twn the parties to e micb l y r a sov et h d i s pu ec o mn ad fil. Howvr, e i t sclear tha els p und Wcr oti f heds pu to e cnirby king a s e re fnc to the rspctiv Chief Ex e cutivs we e l w i thn the such vg period fl .Cy,Wm tan ar b ito n prto re fing t h di s puef or eslutin t o h e rspctiv Chief Excutivs. Conc e ed ly, an aemp to r t solv the di e s pute by the Ch ie f Excutvsfailed on 21. 0 Itis onthes a i d t e h a t erigh to re f t h di s pu e aro in f av o ur Welspun . c o uld nthave fd the di re s pute p r io to exhausting the rmdis of e fing the re di s pute to the rspctiv Chief Ex e cutivs for res e o lutin. The period of l i m t aon for fing the di re s pute to ar b it on thus, must o me n c f rom thesaid,21. 0Wlpu nc 2 7 .01 4, t hais, fter peri a o df then irmos and s ix day,w h ic was w i thn the period of th yas from the date on w re h ic the right to hd is pu oa bn.f tre In view of the above, it is clear t ha the dec i son of the A r bital T ri bun a l (m jot y)r ec thl a i m sd e byWl s pu na be ig r by l i m t aon is ero nus and the impugned a wrd is l iabe to be set

¶30

- vi d n t f ro mhc. e

¶31

The larnd Single Judge a e ptd ce t ha it was n s ary for the c e parties to xplor the po e si blty of slmn t et h roug fnc of the re di s pu te o h C ief sbExcut vo rkg in t h ear b o .Hwv, the larnd Single Judge e nusly ero onlu d e c t ha Welspun was not derg the co n s i fnc to the Chief Ex re cutivs as a prec e on d i t for

¶32

Page 13 of 15

¶33

invocat of thearbiton but as a step for atemping anamicble resolutin fhdp. ThisCourtnablecwh sidve.Ontac thaisnecaryfo Welspunto makerefncothedisputohe Chief Executivs of the parties, it folwstha Welspun could sek a refnc toarbiton only if thesaidproceng we terminad. As *noted abv,hrfcCiExuspl failure on**21.*0 Welspun could have invoked thearbiton *imedatl*y hrfbuso dentrisfc barred	by	the Limitat	ion	Act.“
14. In lightofthejudgmn of the prelimnayobjectin raised by Respondt No. 1tha Petionr ought to		DivsonBech	, theris mertin the
haveexhaustd the	pre - refnc	procedu ofamicble setlmn of the
dispute bforachngCmA				and the
judgments of the Cordinate Benchs can be of no aid to the Petionr.
Albeit Mr. GuptaefdothjudgmnfeSprCoutin				*B andT*
AG *(supra)* but in hisusal fairne judgment does not deal with the isue arisng in the presnt case and also		, candily submitedtha the said
coned tharisjugmfSpCly
the judgment of the	Divson Bench	in *Welspun (supra)*		. Insofar as the
argumenttha Petionrdi atemp toamicbly setl the dispute is conerd, I have carefuly perusd the notice sent by the Petionr on
20.93 but I am unable to discern any requst			by the Petionr to
amicbly resovthdpu.
15. Acordingly, this petion isdisme as prematu				since Petionr
has notkercuo pe		- refnc mhaisolvgtedispu
througselmnak.
16. At this stage, learnd Senior Counsel for the Petionr and counsel forRespndtN.1ubmi,chaywlgxe

¶34

Page 14 of 15

¶35

the poblty of si micble s a lmn of their et inter se dipute s . It is also
d a g tre hpsw il v one camig t 1.0 5a4:PM8 2 a
y l m u ta it n vco e vnu e , v. edna b whic l
17. Let the parties xplor the po e blty of si micble s a lmn as et
d. Nagr e dl to s se ae t ha if the s t lmn talks fail for any reason, et
parties wi be at liberty to take l re cousto reslutin of di o pute t s roug h
on. Ismd itar b e cl ar th i s u o C a n trsdy pe x oi
the merits of the case and a rights and c l eis of the parties are left ont
open.
JYOTI SNGH,
JULY 24,05 /Shivam

¶36

Page 15 of 15

Triveni Pattern Glass Ltd. v. Triveni Glass Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triveni Pattern Glass Ltd. v. Triveni Glass Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Castrol Limited Vs Ibrahim Adamali Sanchawala, Trading as Ea & Sons and T-Max Lubricants and Anr.

Binod Kumar, Proprietor M/S B.K. Food Products Vs Raju Kumar, Proprietor M/S Amrapali Masala Udyog

Astral Ltd. Vs Grasim Industries Ltd.

Yfc Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Private Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S M Y Constructions Vs Union of India