Indu Malhotra, J.— The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the appellant MTNL in MTNL v. Canara Bank 2019 SCC OnLine SC 995 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8-8-2019 passed by this Court directing that Canfina — a wholly owned subsidiary of Respondent 1 — Canara Bank be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings pending between the parties.
2. At the conclusion of the hearing, the counsel for the appellant had made an oral submission to refer the matter to the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (Amrcd). This Court however took note that on two earlier occasions, the matter had been referred to the Committee of Disputes of the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA), on 27-3-2001 and subsequently on 30-5-2008. On both these occasions, the disputes remained unresolved, which also led to loss of time in resolution of the disputes. Since the disputes had been pending for over 25 years, this Court remitted the matter to be resolved through the pending arbitration.
3. The appellants have now filed the present application for reference of the disputes between the parties to the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (Amrcd) in substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
4. The Government of India has now set up Amrcd, which has replaced the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA). The objective of Amrcd is to bring about a time-bound settlement of commercial disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) inter se and CPSE and Government Departments/Organisations.
4.1. Under this new mechanism, the structure for settlement of disputes is that at the first tier, the commercial disputes shall be referred to a Committee comprising of the Secretaries of the Administrative Ministries/Departments to which the disputing CPSEs/parties belong and the Secretary of the Department of Legal Affairs.
4.2. In case the dispute remains unresolved, it will be referred in the second tier to the Cabinet Secretary, whose decision will be final and binding on all the parties concerned.
5. The counsel for the appellant submits that since the disputes in the present case have arisen between two PSUs inter se, the matter should be referred to Amrcd.
6. The counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for reference of disputes to Amrcd on the ground that it would tantamount to a review of the judgment of this Court dated 8-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine SC 995.
7. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Though as a logical sequitur to the judgment dated 8-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine SC 995, Canfina stands impleaded in the pending arbitral proceedings which ought to be taken to the logical conclusion, in our view, an attempt must be made if the disputes between the two public sector enterprises could be settled through Amrcd. If any settlement is brought about through such an attempt, it will not only save public funds, but will ensure the true spirit of coordination amongst different public bodies. Guided purely by these considerations, we direct all the three parties i.e. MTNL, Canara Bank, and Canfina, to approach Amrcd for settlement of their disputes. If, however, the disputes are not settled by 15-1-2020 the disputes will then be resolved through the pending arbitration proceedings as directed vide the judgment and order dated 8-8-2019 2019 SCC OnLine SC 995.