12.I do not agree. The factum of dispute inter se the parties is not disputed by the respondent. As such what remains to be seen is only whether the procedure followed by the petitioner leading to the present petition is in accordance with the terms of the contract. The interpretation of a joint reading of clauses 55 and 56 appears to me to be as follows - to begin with, mutual discussions, then mediation and thereafter arbitration by an arbitral tribunal. In the present case, the petitioner has, on two occasions, 8.2.2017 as well as 9.3.2017, made its intention clear to the effect that there is a dispute. The factum of disputes has, as noticed by me earlier, not been denied. In both communications, the petitioner seeks the appointment of a Mediator. The first letter though received by the respondent, has been ignored. To the second letter, an interim reply was sent on 22.03.2017 stating that a detailed reply was being prepared and would be sent in four weeks time. It is thus impossible to have complied with the second limb of dispute resolution, Mediation, since clause 55 requires both parties to submit the matter for mediation. In this case, while the petitioner was willing, the respondent was clearly not. Though in its letter dated 22.3.2017, the respondent states that it is in the process of issuing a detailed reply, none was issued till july 2017 and even then, only subsequent to receipt of notice on the present petition. Thus, I am of the view that the time for mediation is long gone and the petitioner has rightly approached this court http://www.judis.nic.in
