The matter is being argued in the background of earlier adjudication in Arbitration Application No.4 of 2007 on 19-3-2008 by this Court holding that said application filed before it by the present applicants was premature because as per agreement between parties the arbitration was contemplated only after failure of conciliation held in terms of section 62 of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act or Arbitration Act. This Court then left present applicants i.e. M/s Tulip free to invoke said proceedings and all other contentions raised before it open. The two appeals against orders under section 9 of 1996 Act earlier ordered to be heard with this application have been separated with consent of parties on 17-7-2009. The respective Senior Advocates have completed their arguments after this order.

2. In view of this position and as contesting parties are before this Court through their respective learned Senior Advocates and existence of the arbitration clause vide clause No. 19 in the agreement is not in dispute, I have tried to find out the areas ~n dispute so as to curtail unnecessary lengthy arguments. It appears that the respo