Point of law: It is settled law that arbitration clause can be invoked only when there are differences and disputes with regard to certain payments or breach of obligations of respective parties of terms of agreement.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed to appoint an arbitral tribunal under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) with respect to the disputes arisen between the parties in relation to purchase order dated 15.03.2017 executed by the applicant and the respondent and consequent tax invoices raised by the applicant.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing computer hardware, data storage devices, commercial services, commercial servers, laptops, monitors, peripherals, comprehensive Information Technology solutions etc. The respondent was desirous of purchasing several products from the applicant, which is detailed out in pages 11 to 14 of the application. The respondent placed order on the applicant for supply of products worth Rs.86,03,132.60 ps. inclusive of GST at 18%. Under the purchase order, as pare clause No.1, the respondent has credit period of 30 days for making payment. The products were shipped by the applicant and the same were received by the respondent at its Chandigarh premises. The applicant raised multiple tax invoices as mentioned in para 5 of the application. Several emails were addressed by the applicant to clear outstanding invoices. The respondent assured the applicant that pending payments would be cleared in three to four days vide email dated 30.01.2020. In spite of the applicant giving sufficient time to the respondent taking into consideration COVID-19 pandemic, the respondent failed to clear pending amount and stopped acknowledging any further communication from the applicant.

3. Clause 6(iii) of the purchase order provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration. Notice dated 24.09.2020 was issued by the applicant to the respondent to resolve the pending issue within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice, which was received by the respondent by email dated 24.09.2020 and by speed post on 28.09.2020. Reply notice dated 0.10.2020 was sent by the respondent acknowledging the dues of the applicant and again sought time to process the pending invoices amounting to Rs.86,03,132.60/-. In order to resolve the dispute amicably, the applicant granted final extension till 31.12.2020 to clear the outstanding dues vide emails dated 02.12.2020 and 04.12.2020. The respondent failed to make payment which lead to the petitioner issuing noticing dated 02.02.2021 invoking arbitration under clause 6(iii) of the purchase order dated 15.03.2019. The respondent, having received the notice, did not issue any reply and failed to agree upon a mutually appointed arbitrator.

4. Mr. T. Natraj, learned counsel for the application, has submitted that though the respondent has admitted the liability, it has been dodging payment on one pretext or the other. Mere admission of claim without discharging liability cannot be construed as non-existence of dispute. As payment is not made, the applicant has to invoke legal remedy, and therefore, the dispute continues to exist until payment is made. In any case, admission of debt/liability is only a tactic resorted to by the respondent to deprive the application its due payment.

5. Mr. Y. Swaroop Sai, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that there is no dispute existing between the parties. According to the learned counsel, as the claim of payment under the invoices is admitted by the respondent, there is no need to refer the parties to arbitration. He further contended arbitrator would be appointed by this Court only when there is a dispute, which requires adjudication, and in the instant case, there is no dispute and therefore, referring the matter to an arbitrator is unwarranted.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following judgments UNION OF INDIA v. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD., [AIR 1967 SC 688]; M/s. PEARL HOSIERY MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA, [AIR 1979 DELHI 64]; M/s. CHEMIPACK (INDIA) PVT. LTD. v. M/s. ARCH PHARMA LABS LTD. [judgment dated 10.07.2017 in