A selection of key court orders Differing arbitration clauses in related contracts

When there are two different arbitration clauses in two related agreements between the same parties, disagreements arise often over the procedure to be followed, appointments to the tribunal and the venue. One contract might suggest one procedure and in the same set of contracts, another might suggest a different procedure. In a recent Supreme Court case, Balasore Alloys Ltd vs Medima LLC , there was one “umbrella” contract between the two parties and a separate one dealing with pricing of ferro chrome for export to Canada and USA. The two clauses differed with each other. One was domestic and the other was international, to be heard and decided under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in London. In such cases, the court stated that the two clauses should be read harmoniously. The Indian company sought the appointment of a second arbitrator as the Canadian firm did not nominate its representative in the pricing dispute. The latter argued that it had already initiated arbitration in London according to the clause in the “umbrella” agreement. Reconciling the difference, the court ruled that the main contract was comprehensive and the arbitration clause in the purchase order was for a limited purpose covering export of the alloy. Therefore, the plea for appointing an arbitrator by the Supreme Court according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was dismissed.