Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. V. Ircon International Ltd
The Delhi High Court has declared that the Court must incline toward directing the issue to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, which is attempted to be negated by a party by claiming other elements of a contract, which needs interpretation of the contract.
A contract was made between the respondent Ircon International Limited and the petitioner Shristi Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Following a few disagreements between the parties, the petitioner used the arbitration provision in the General Conditions of Contract and made a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) to the Delhi High Court asking for the appointment of an arbitrator.
In its argument before the High Court, the respondent Ircon International stated that the parties had signed the Special Conditions of Contract (SCCs) and that, in accordance with the clause in question, the SCCs shall take precedence over any General Conditions of Contract (GCCs) if any of the SCCs' terms conflict with or are inconsistent with those terms. The respondent said that the SCCs contain a dispute resolution provision that calls on the parties to settle disagreements amicably through consultations, talks, and debates.
Though the Special Conditions of Contract (SCCs) gave the Special Conditions of Contract (SCCs) precedence over the General Conditions of Contract (GCCs), the Court noted that this impact was only applicable to the extent that there was a disagreement or discrepancy between the two clauses. The Court further stated that there was no clear contradiction or disagreement between any of the Special Conditions of Contract's provisions and the arbitration clause included in the General Conditions of Contract.