The International Court of ARBITRATION
In the realm of commercial disputes, conflicts often arise between entities involved in various industries. One such dispute unfolded between a leading Exporter, Importer, and Manufacturer of Bicycles and Tube valves based in Kolkata, West Bengal, and a cycle store owner from Palgarh. The Claimant, well-known for their expertise and prominence in the bicycle market, found themselves entangled in a disagreement over the non-payment of a substantial amount of Rs. 1,16,112/- by the Respondent.
As the dispute escalated, both parties recognised the need for a fair and impartial resolution. Seeking a solution that would mitigate further complications and preserve their business relationships, they decided to approach PrivateCourt, a renowned institution specialising in alternative dispute resolution.
The Claimant, driven by a commitment to excellence and professionalism, had supplied bicycles and tube valves to the Respondent's cycle store as part of a business agreement. However, to their dismay, the Respondent failed to fulfill their financial obligations, resulting in a breach of contract. The Claimant had fulfilled their end of the agreement, delivering high-quality products within the stipulated timeframe, only to encounter an unexpected hurdle when the payment was due.
Beyond the initial non-payment of Rs. 1,16,112/-, there are additional factors that have exacerbated the dispute between the parties.
Firstly, the Claimant asserts that the Respondent failed to honour the agreed-upon payment terms, leading to financial strain and impacting the Claimant's cash flow. The Claimant contends that this breach of contract has caused them substantial economic losses and has hindered their ability to conduct business smoothly.
Secondly, another bone of contention in this dispute is the alleged delay in the delivery of the bicycles and tube valves by the Claimant. The Respondent claims that the late delivery resulted in a decline in customer satisfaction, causing a negative impact on their cycle store's reputation and sales. They argue that the Claimant's failure to fulfill their obligations in a timely manner has disrupted their operations and led to financial losses.
Furthermore, the dispute extends to the quality of the supplied products. The Respondent alleges that the bicycles and tube valves provided by the Claimant did not meet the agreed-upon standards. They argue that the subpar quality of the products has adversely affected their business, leading to customer complaints, returns, and decreased sales. The Respondent contends that the Claimant's failure to deliver products of the promised quality constitutes a breach of contract and justifies their refusal to make the payment.
Lastly, there is a disagreement between the parties regarding the scope of the warranty provided by the Claimant. The Respondent claims that certain defects in the bicycles and tube valves became apparent after the sale, and they believe that the Claimant should bear the responsibility for rectifying these issues. They argue that the Claimant's failure to address these warranty-related matters further justifies their non-payment and has fueled the dispute.
These additional issues surrounding delayed delivery, product quality, and warranty disputes have compounded the initial non-payment, exacerbating the tensions between the Claimant and the Respondent. The complexity and multifaceted nature of these issues make the resolution of the dispute all the more challenging and emphasise the need for a fair and impartial resolution process.
PrivateCourt, known for its efficient and unbiased handling of disputes, promptly initiated the proceedings. The conciliator sent a notice to both parties, requesting the submission of relevant documents to understand the nature of the dispute comprehensively. The PrivateCourt team thoroughly vetted the provided documents, ensuring transparency and adherence to the established protocol.
The Conciliator, a learned and impartial professional from PrivateCourt, scheduled a conciliation session via Zoom and audio conference as per the Notice of Conciliation. During this session, both the Respondent and Claimant engaged in positive discussions regarding the amicable settlement of the dispute. The Respondent informed PrivateCourt about their willingness to resolve the matter mutually.
Recognising the desire for a swift resolution, a settlement agreement was drafted. In the agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay the settled amount of Rs. 1,16,112/- in two equal installments of Rs. 58,056/- each. The payment was to be made within 30 days from the date of the agreement. To ensure any future disputes were resolved efficiently, the settlement agreement specified that e-arbitration, according to the rules of PrivateCourt, would be the method for resolving any claim or dispute arising from the agreement.
This case demonstrates the effectiveness of PrivateCourt as a neutral platform for resolving commercial disputes. Through prompt action, meticulous examination of evidence, and unbiased facilitation of communication, PrivateCourt enabled the parties to engage in meaningful discussions and reach a mutually agreeable settlement. The use of e-arbitration for potential future disputes ensures a streamlined and efficient process, fostering long-term trust and cooperation between the parties involved.
