In the world of disagreements, not finding a solution is like starting a journey without directions. PrivateCourt is your guide, making sure every problem finds a way to an amicable RESOLUTION!

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

Finance Company V Individual Borrower

Case Number: PVTCRT/CD/Pvt. Finance Company V Individual Borrower
Date of Claim raised: 10/08/2023
Date of Conciliation: 21/08/2023
Date of Settlement: 21/08/2023
Digest: Mediation/Conciliation/Dispute/Claimant/Respondent/Invoice/Settlement
Case Summary

In 2019, the Claimant, a non-government company based in TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU, and the Respondent, an individual residing in BARAMATI, MAHARASHTRA, found themselves embroiled in a dispute over a significant sum of money. The dispute revolved around a nonpayment issue, where the respondent failed to meet their financial obligations to the claimant. Despite numerous attempts at resolution, the parties couldn't reach an agreement, leading them to seek an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process.

Frustrated by the mounting tensions and realizing the need for a fair resolution, both parties decided to turn to PrivateCourt, a renowned ADR platform, for assistance. They hoped that the expertise of PrivateCourt's conciliation team could help them find a mutually agreeable solution to their financial dispute. This case study delves into the intricacies of the dispute, the role of PrivateCourt, and the eventual resolution achieved through ADR.

The Issue

The dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent, arising from a financial transaction gone awry, is a complex web of intricacies that spanned over several months, culminating in their decision to seek the assistance of PrivateCourt for resolution. This section delves into the depths of the dispute, elucidating the four primary reasons that drove these parties into a bitter legal battle.

Payment Delay: At the heart of the matter was the persistent delay in payment by the Respondent to the Claimant. The roots of this issue can be traced back to an agreement between the parties. In 2018, the Respondent had availed financial services from the Claimant, with the understanding that a sum of Rs. 60,000 would be repaid within a stipulated time frame. However, as time passed, the Respondent consistently failed to meet their payment obligations.

This delay had far-reaching implications for the Claimant. As a non-government finance company, they heavily relied on timely repayments to maintain liquidity and meet their financial commitments. The delayed payment not only disrupted their cash flow but also jeopardized their ability to extend further financial assistance to other clients. The Claimant found themselves in a precarious financial position, struggling to reconcile their obligations due to the Respondent's noncompliance.

The disagreement over the actual amount owed highlighted a critical issue - the absence of clear, unambiguous documentation. The original Disputed Amount: As the dispute escalated, it became apparent that the parties couldn't even agree on the precise amount owed. The Respondent contended that they had made partial payments, significantly reducing the outstanding amount. Conversely, the Claimant adamantly asserted that the full sum of Rs. 60,000 remained unpaid. This discrepancy further fueled the dispute, leading to an impasse that seemed insurmountable.agreement between the parties lacked the necessary specificity regarding payment terms, creating a fertile ground for disputes and misunderstandings. The lack of clarity only exacerbated the already strained relationship between The Claimant and The Respondent.

Contractual Discrepancies: Beyond the disagreement on the amount owed, both parties had varying interpretations of the contractual terms and conditions. While the Claimant insisted that The Respondent had breached the agreement by failing to make timely payments, the Respondent argued that they had valid reasons for the delays, citing alleged deviations from the original agreement by the Claimant.

This divergence in interpretation illuminated the need for a meticulous review of the original agreement. The contract's language and the responsibilities and obligations of each party were open to multiple interpretations, leaving room for contentious arguments and counterclaims. The conflicting viewpoints on contractual compliance added another layer of complexity to the dispute.

Communication Breakdown: As the dispute continued to fester, direct communication between the parties deteriorated significantly. What had begun as cordial discussions turned acrimonious, with accusations and recriminations flying from both sides. The breakdown in communication not only hindered efforts to resolve the dispute internally but also exacerbated their animosity. The deteriorating relationship further emphasized the necessity of a neutral, third-party intervention. The Claimant and the Respondent had reached an impasse where emotions ran high, and trust was nonexistent. A fresh perspective and structured approach were required to reestablish dialogue and facilitate a potential resolution.

The Process

PrivateCourt's seasoned conciliation team promptly took charge. Formal notices were dispatched, detailing the conciliation process and requesting pertinent documents for a fair assessment. Thorough vetting of these documents ensued, ensuring an unbiased evaluation.

Following protocol, PrivateCourt scheduled a conciliation session via Zoom and audio calls per the Notice of Conciliation. However, an unexpected twist emerged: both the Respondent and the Claimant engaged in a constructive dialogue, expressing a genuine desire to amicably resolve the dispute. The Respondent promptly informed PrivateCourt of this positive development.

The Settlement Agreement

On August 21, 2023, a Settlement Agreement was meticulously drafted and executed, complying with Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It stipulated that the Respondent would pay The Claimant the agreed-upon sum of Rs. 60,000 by August 31, 2023. Crucially, the agreement included a provision stating that any future claims or disputes related to this settlement would be resolved via e-arbitration following PrivateCourt's rules, ensuring a swift resolution mechanism.

The Inference

This case underscores the efficacy of Alternative Dispute Resolution, specifically conciliation, in resolving complex financial disputes. PrivateCourt's involvement facilitated constructive dialogue between the parties, leading to a mutually beneficial settlement. Such resolutions not only save time and resources but also foster the possibility of maintaining business relationships. In an era where litigation can be arduous, ADR offers a pragmatic and harmonious path to dispute resolution.