JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

(By Video Conference on account of COVID-19)

1. The court is, in the present case, faced with a piquant situation in which various documents have been executed between the parties, containing arbitration clauses, each of which points in a direction to different from the others.

2. The way forward, in such a situation, is shown by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balasore Alloys Ltd. v. Medima Llc, (2020) 9 SCC 136 para 11 of which reads thus:

11. At this stage, it is necessary for us to refer to the decision rendered in Olympus Superstructures (P) Ltd. v. Meena Vijay Khetan, (1999) 5 SCC 651 wherein this Court was confronted with the issue of there being two different arbitration clauses in two related agreements between the same parties. This Court while dealing with the same had harmonised both the clauses and had on reconciliation held that the parties should get the disputes resolved under the main agreement. In that context it was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667-68, para 30)

30. 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 o