The International Court of ARBITRATION
In a case of nonpayment, an Enterprise Messaging & Digital Marketing company based in Bangalore found itself in a dispute with a Tech Services Private company based in Pune. The Claimant specialised in offering reliable, quality, and cost-effective services in the areas of Messaging, Voice Solutions, Digital Marketing, and Software & Applications Development. The Claimant had expertise in the Messaging, Media, and Technology industries. They provided progressive end-to-end solutions tailored to the specific requirements of their customers, leveraging their domain expertise, profound knowledge of the latest industry trends, and a quality-driven delivery model.
The Claimant had entered into an agreement with the Respondent to provide their services, including integrating their Enterprise Messaging Gateway smoothly with the Respondent's software or CRM system. However, the Respondent failed to fulfill their payment obligations for the services rendered by the Claimant, leading to a dispute over the nonpayment of the amount in question. Failing to resolve the matter through direct negotiations, the case was brought to PrivateCourt for settlement.
The dispute arose due to the Respondent's failure to make the payment of the disputed amount of Rs. 6,47,708/- along with 18% interest. The Claimant had fulfilled their contractual obligations by providing their services in line with the agreed-upon terms. However, the Respondent disputed the quality of the services provided, which led them to withhold the payment.
a)Quality of Services: The Respondent claimed that the services provided by the Claimant did not meet their expectations in terms of quality. They argued that the delivered solutions did not integrate smoothly with their software or CRM system as promised. This alleged lack of quality led the Respondent to question the full payment.
b)Timeliness of Delivery: The Respondent also alleged that the Claimant did not meet the agreed-upon deadlines for the completion and delivery of the services. The delay in delivering the solutions had a negative impact on the Respondent's operations and resulted in a loss of trust in the Claimant's ability to fulfill their contractual obligations.
c)Communication Issues: Both parties faced challenges in maintaining effective communication throughout the project. The lack of clear and timely communication led to misunderstandings and contributed to the escalation of the dispute. The Claimant argued that they had made efforts to address the Respondent's concerns and provide timely updates, while the Respondent claimed that the Claimant did not adequately address their queries and concerns.
d)Payment Discrepancies: The Respondent questioned certain invoicing details and disputed the accuracy of the billed amount. They believed that they were being charged for services that were not provided or were not up to the mark. This disagreement over the payment amount further complicated the dispute.
e)Scope of Work: Another reason for the dispute was the discrepancy in the understanding of the scope of work between the Claimant and the Respondent. The Claimant believed that they had provided all the services as per the agreed-upon scope, while the Respondent argued that certain aspects were not included or adequately addressed. This difference in interpretation led to disagreements regarding the completeness of the delivered services and further fueled the dispute.
f)Payment Terms and Conditions: The issue also arose due to differing interpretations of the payment terms and conditions outlined in the contract. The Claimant believed that the payment schedule and amounts were clearly defined, and any deviations should be resolved through proper communication. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the payment terms were unclear and disputed certain billing details, resulting in a breakdown of trust and nonpayment.
The PrivateCourt team, as the conciliator, took charge of the case and handled the proceedings with professionalism and expertise. They initiated the process by sending a formal notice to both the Claimant and the Respondent, informing them about the dispute and requesting the submission of relevant documents to support their respective claims. The notice outlined the timeline for document submission and stressed the importance of adhering to it.
Both parties promptly provided the requested documents to PrivateCourt. The PrivateCourt team meticulously reviewed and vetted the submitted documents to verify their authenticity and accuracy. This process ensured that both parties had a fair opportunity to present their case and that the conciliator had access to all the relevant information.
After carefully assessing the case and the documents submitted, the conciliator scheduled a Conciliation session via Zoom and audio calls Conference as per the Notice of Conciliation. However, prior to the scheduled conciliation, the Respondent informed PrivateCourt that they had engaged in positive discussions with the Claimant regarding the amicable settlement of the dispute.
Given the positive discussions between the Claimant and the Respondent, a settlement agreement was drafted to formalise the resolution. The settlement agreement outlined the terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties. According to the agreement, the Respondent acknowledged their liability and agreed to pay the settled amount of Rs. 6,47,708/- along with 18% interest within 50 days from the date of the agreement, which was on or before March 2023.
To ensure a fair and efficient resolution of any future claims or disputes related to the settlement agreement, it was agreed that e-arbitration would be the preferred method of resolution. The settlement agreement stipulated that any such claims or disputes would be resolved in accordance with the rules of PrivateCourt's e-arbitration process.
This case demonstrates the importance of alternative dispute resolution methods, such as conciliation, in resolving conflicts between parties. The involvement of PrivateCourt allowed both parties to present their arguments and provide supporting documentation. This impartial and structured approach ensured that the dispute was handled with fairness and transparency.
The settlement agreement provided a clear resolution to the nonpayment dispute, specifying the settlement amount and the deadline for payment. Additionally, the inclusion of a provision for e-arbitration in case of any future disputes regarding the agreement ensured that the parties had a predetermined method of resolution, promoting efficiency and minimizing further conflicts.
