M/S Devdhar Rice Mills v. Union Of India And Others

APURVA 2025.02.07 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

the courts will not permit recourse to any other remedy without invoking the remedy by way of arbitration, unless of course both the parties to the dispute agree on another mode of dispute resolution.

5.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of U.P. Vs. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.", 1996 AIR 3515 (SCC p. 31, para 21), has observed as under:- "Further, the contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration. The arbitrators can decide both questions of fact as well as questions of law. When the contract itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract, there is no reason why the parties should not follow and adopt that remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The existence of an effective alternative remedy - in this case, provided in the contract itself - is a good ground for the court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226." 6.

That apart, there are certain disputed questions of facts involved in the present writ petition.

7.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed; however, the petitioner may (if so advised) invoke arbitration in terms of the agreement executed between the parties.

8.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. APURVA 2025.02.07 10:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh