PRO TIP when you face a Business Conflict

Collaborate, Don't Confront: In ADR, success lies in collaboration, not confrontation. Embrace open communication, actively listen, and work together towards a solution that benefits all parties involved.

Private Court Symbol
The International Court of ARBITRATION


Got any

Write to us

Share this page

Digital Marketing Company V. Home Service Provider Company

Case Number: PVTCRT/CD/Digital Marketing Company V. Home Service Provider Company
Date of Claim raised: 05/08/2023
Date of Conciliation: 17/08/2023
Date of Settlement: 17/08/2023
Digest: Mediation/Conciliation/Dispute/Claimant/Respondent/Invoice/Settlement
Case Summary

In the vibrant city of Bangalore, a digital marketing company known as "The Claimant" found itself embroiled in a financial dispute with "The Respondent," a private limited venture specializing in home-based services. The source of contention was a substantial sum of Rs. 70,835/- that the Respondent owed the Claimant.

As tensions escalated, both parties sought resolution, leading them to PrivateCourt, renowned for its expertise in alternative dispute resolution. These distinct entities, each with its own unique profile and objectives, converged in their pursuit of a fair settlement through the PrivateCourt platform.

The Issue

The dispute that unfolded between the Claimant and the Respondent was a complex web of intricacies, stemming from a myriad of factors that eventually culminated in a financial standoff. To gain a deeper understanding, it is imperative to delve into the four key reasons behind the dispute:

Outstanding Payment Dispute: The primary bone of contention revolved around an outstanding payment of Rs. 70,835/-. The Claimant firmly contended that they had diligently provided a range of digital marketing services to the Respondent as per the agreed-upon terms and conditions. However, despite the services being rendered in a timely and efficient manner, the payment remained elusive. This arrearage exacerbated the situation, as the Claimant insisted that it was their due and had become long overdue. Service Quality Dispute: On the flip side, the Respondent vehemently contested the quality of the services provided by the Claimant. They argued that the digital marketing services fell short of the expected standards, and as such, they questioned the value derived from the collaboration. This perceived deficiency in the services offered became a focal point of contention, as the Respondent was reluctant to disburse the full amount, citing dissatisfaction.

Communication Breakdown: The third factor that added fuel to the fire was a communication breakdown between the two parties. Misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the initial agreement further exacerbated the rift. Vital details and expectations were lost in translation, leading to a lack of clarity on both sides. This lack of effective communication deepened the animosity and made reconciliation a challenging task. Contractual Obligations Dispute: Lastly, the dispute was intensified due to differing interpretations of the contractual obligations. Both the Claimant and the Respondent had their own perspectives on the terms and timelines outlined in their agreement. Disagreements arose over the scope of services, delivery deadlines, and payment schedules. These conflicting interpretations of the contract contributed to the overall complexity of the dispute.

In essence, the dispute that reached the doors of PrivateCourt was a multifaceted clash of interests, marked by financial discrepancies, differences in service quality expectations, a breakdown in communication, and varying understandings of contractual obligations. Each of these factors played a crucial role in shaping the narrative of this conflict and set the stage for a resolution that would ultimately be reached through the intervention of PrivateCourt's dispute resolution expertise.

The PrivateCourt Proceedings

PrivateCourt, renowned for its impartiality, initiated proceedings by sending official notices to both parties. Requests for documents were made, and extensive vetting was carried out to gather evidence. The protocol was diligently followed, ensuring transparency and fairness throughout the process.

The learned Sole Conciliator from PrivateCourt scheduled a conciliation session via Zoom and audio calls, per the Notice of Conciliation. Surprisingly, during this session, the Respondent and the Claimant engaged in a constructive dialogue. Both parties displayed a willingness to settle the dispute amicably, eventually leading to a mutually acceptable resolution.

The Settlement Agreement

On the 17th of August 2023, a Settlement Agreement was drafted and entered into, as per Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The key terms included:

The Respondent's commitment to pay the settled amount of Rs. 70,835/- to The Claimant on or before the 15th of November, 2023.

Additionally, the Respondent agreed to make monthly payments of Rs. 23,611/- starting from September 2023, and concluding in November 2023.

In the event of any future claims or disputes related to this Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to resolve them through e-arbitration in accordance with PrivateCourt's rules.

The Inference

In this tale of conflicting interests and financial discrepancies, the PrivateCourt emerged as a beacon of fairness and resolution. Through adept handling, it facilitated a constructive dialogue between the Claimant and the Respondent, resulting in a mutually beneficial Settlement Agreement. This case underscores the importance of alternative dispute resolution in the ever-evolving landscape of business and commerce, reminding us that amicable solutions are often the most pragmatic way forward.