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.
The Claimant, an ISO 9001-2008 certified OEKO TEX CERTIFIED, and REACH certified company, was established in 1976 as a printed labels manufacturing unit. Equipped with advanced machinery and technology, the Claimant had earned a reputation for its high-quality products. Their facility in Prabhadevi, Mumbai, boasted a drying oven, a spectro photometer for color matching, a laundrometer for checking wash fastness, an ultrasonic machine for soft cut labels, and 17 printing machines capable of producing from 1,000 labels up to a million labels a day.
On the other hand, the Respondent is a 29-year-old Private Limited company, established in 1994, with its registered office in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Engaged in the manufacturing industry, the Respondent specialised in the production of travel goods, including suitcase bags and holdalls. Their manufacturing unit was situated in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The dispute arose when the Respondent failed to make a payment of Rs. 16,187/- to the Claimant for the services rendered. The Claimant had provided printed labels to the Respondent based on an agreement. However, despite repeated reminders and efforts to resolve the matter amicably, the payment remained outstanding.
Eventually, the case was brought before PrivateCourt for settlement.
The primary issue in this case was the non-payment of the disputed amount by the Respondent to the Claimant. The Claimant had fulfilled their contractual obligations by providing printed labels to the Respondent as per the agreed terms. However, the Respondent failed to make the necessary payment within the stipulated timeframe, which led to a breach of the agreement.
The Claimant argued that they were an ISO-certified company with a long-standing reputation for producing high-quality printed labels. They asserted that they had delivered the labels in accordance with the agreed specifications, meeting all the necessary standards and requirements. Therefore, they firmly believed that the Respondent was liable to make the payment as per the agreed terms.
On the other hand, the Respondent contended that there were discrepancies in the services provided by the Claimant. They claimed that the printed labels received did not meet their quality standards, and they had raised concerns about it with the Claimant. The Respondent argued that they were not obligated to make the payment until the Claimant rectified the quality issues.
The PrivateCourt team promptly initiated the necessary procedures to resolve the dispute. As per the standard protocol, the next step involved scheduling a conciliation meeting after requesting and vetting all the necessary documents from both parties. Given the geographical distance between the Claimant in Mumbai and the Respondent in Ghaziabad, the conciliation meeting was arranged via Zoom and audio conference.
However, before the scheduled conciliation meeting, the Respondent informed PrivateCourt that they had engaged in positive discussions with the Claimant regarding the settlement of the dispute. They expressed their willingness to resolve the matter amicably and requested additional time to finalise the settlement terms.
Considering the positive discussions between the Claimant and the Respondent, PrivateCourt drafted a settlement agreement. The agreement outlined the terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties for resolving the dispute.
The settlement agreement stated that the Respondent would pay the settled amount of Rs. 16,187/- to the Claimant on or before 25th February 2023. It further mentioned that in case of any future claims or disputes arising from the settlement agreement, the parties would resolve them through e-arbitration, following the rules and procedures of PrivateCourt.
The settlement agreement was reviewed and signed by both the Claimant and the Respondent, signifying their acceptance of the terms and their commitment to abide by them.
This case highlights the effectiveness of resolving commercial disputes through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The involvement of PrivateCourt as a neutral third party facilitated communication and negotiation between the Claimant and the Respondent, leading to a successful settlement agreement.
