SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN AN ARBITRATION CASE IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAIN AGREEMENT AND ALSO DISPUTES IN REGARD TO “OTHER MATTERS” “CONNECTED” WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN AGREEMENT

NAME		MOBILE NO.	E-MAIL I’D
RANJEET KUMAR		8383098478, 9667769795	rk@courtkutchehry.com
JAI THAKUR		8130703334, 9355723300	jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com
RAJEEV RANJAN		9334553249	rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com
ASHOK MISHRA		9718327746	sales@courtkutchehry.com
RAVI KUMAR			ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

Balasore Alloys Limited Vs. Medima LLC, (2020) 09 SC CK 0023

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that if there is a situation where there are disputes and differences in connection with the main agreement and also disputes in regard to “other matters” “connected” with the subject matter of the main agreement then in such a situation, in our view, we are governed by the general arbitration clause 39 of the main agreement under which disputes under the main agreement and disputes connected therewith can be referred to the same arbitral tribunal. This clause 39 no doubt does not refer to any named arbitrators. So far as clause 5 of the Interior Design Agreement is concerned, it refers to disputes and differences arising from that agreement which can be referred to named arbitrators and the said clause 5, in our opinion, comes into play only in a situation where there are no disputes and differences in relation to the main agreement and the disputes and differences are solely confined to the Interior Design Agreement.