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.
In the bustling city of Ghaziabad, a medium-sized company named the Claimant thrived as a reliable supplier of fabrics and accessories to various entities involved in the garment manufacturing industry. One of their valued clients, the Respondent, had been a prominent manufacturer of fashion wear and ready-made garments since 1995. However, a dispute arose when the Respondent failed to make a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Claimant for their delivered goods.
The Claimant had fulfilled their obligations by supplying fabrics and accessories to the Respondent, but the payment remained outstanding. Frustrated by the non-payment, the Claimant decided to seek resolution through the PrivateCourt, a renowned platform specialising in alternative dispute resolution. Both parties hoped for an amicable settlement to avoid protracted legal battles and maintain their business relationship.
The dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent stemmed from the non-payment of the disputed amount, Rs. 1,50,000/-. The Claimant had fulfilled their obligations by supplying fabrics and accessories to the Respondent, but the payment remained outstanding. The Claimant insisted that the payment was long overdue and sought the full settlement of the amount owed. On the other hand, the Respondent disputed the claim, asserting that the goods delivered were of subpar quality and did not meet their expectations. They argued that the non-payment was justified due to the alleged breach of contract by the Claimant. Both parties firmly stood their ground, and resolving the dispute seemed increasingly challenging.
However, the underlying reasons for the dispute were multifaceted and extended beyond the mere non-payment.
a) Quality Discrepancy: The Respondent alleged that the fabric and accessories supplied by the Claimant were of subpar quality, falling short of the agreed-upon standards. They claimed that the materials did not meet the expected durability, colorfastness, and finish, rendering them unsuitable for their manufacturing processes. As a result, the Respondent argued that they were justified in withholding payment until the Claimant rectified the quality issues or provided compensation for the damages caused by the inferior products.
b) Delivery Delays: Another point of contention arose from the perceived delays in the Claimant's delivery of the fabric and accessories. The Respondent asserted that the Claimant failed to meet the agreed-upon delivery deadlines, causing disruptions in their production schedule and resulting in financial losses. The Respondent contended that these delays compromised their ability to fulfill orders from their own customers, leading to reputational damage and lost business opportunities. Consequently, they argued that the non-payment was warranted due to the Claimant's breach of contract regarding timely delivery.
c) Invoicing Discrepancies: Disagreements regarding the invoicing process further fueled the dispute between the parties. The Respondent claimed that the Claimant had inaccurately invoiced certain items, charging higher prices than initially agreed upon. They contended that the invoicing discrepancies indicated a lack of transparency and fairness on the part of the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent disputed the total amount owed and refused to make payment until the invoicing issues were resolved and a revised invoice was provided.
The PrivateCourt team swiftly took charge of the case, initiating the necessary proceedings to facilitate a fair resolution. They sent a notice to both the Claimant and the Respondent, formally addressing the dispute and requesting relevant documents to substantiate their claims.
The team diligently vetted the submitted evidence to ensure accuracy and impartiality. Following protocol, the Ld. Sole Conciliator from PrivateCourt scheduled a conciliation meeting via Zoom and audio conference, allowing both parties to present their arguments and explore potential solutions. To the satisfaction of the PrivateCourt team, the Respondent informed them of positive discussions with the Claimant regarding an amicable settlement.
With the intent of resolving the dispute and moving forward, a settlement agreement was drafted. According to its terms,
However, in the event of non-compliance by the Respondent, interest at a rate of 18% per annum would be charged from the date of default mentioned in the invoice.
Moreover, any future claims or disputes related to this settlement agreement would be resolved through e-arbitration, adhering to the rules of PrivateCourt.
This case showcases the effectiveness of ADR as the best approach for the resolution of disputes between businesses. Through their meticulous handling of the proceedings, PrivateCourt managed to bring the Claimant and the Respondent to the table for positive discussions and a mutually agreeable settlement. By fostering amicability and promoting fair solutions, PrivateCourt played a crucial role in preserving the business relationship between the parties involved. This case exemplifies the value of alternative dispute resolution platforms like PrivateCourt in ensuring swift and satisfactory outcomes while minimizing the adversarial nature of traditional legal proceedings.
