Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

40.In the last, she invited the attention of this Court to Office Memorandum No. 05.0003/2019-FTS-10937 dated 14.12.2022 titled the ‘Settlement of commercial disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) inter se and CPSE(s) and Government Department(s)/Organization(s) - Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD)’ (for short, the “AMRCD Memorandum”), issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India. She submitted that the AMRCD Memorandum has been formulated with a view to provide a  structured mechanism for resolution of disputes inter se CPSEs. through arbitration, in accordance with the procedure outlined therein. Placing reliance on the said guidelines, she contended that, since the dispute in the present matter is between two public sector banks, it ought to be resolved under the framework of the AMRCD Memorandum.

119. At this juncture, we may address ourselves on another submission vehemently canvassed on behalf of the respondent bank, as regards the applicability of the AMRCD Memorandum. Ms. Ekta Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that since the dispute in the present matter is  between two public sector banks, it ought to be resolved under the framework of the AMRCD Memorandum, which provides a structured mechanism for resolution of disputes inter-se CPSEs. Although, this contention was not once raised by the respondent bank either before the DRT or the High Court, yet we deem it necessary to answer the same.

“3.3 Any dispute or difference relating to the interpretation and application of the provisions of commercial contract(s) between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs)/ Port Trusts inter se and also between CPSEs and Government Departments/Organizations (excluding disputes relating to Railways, Income Tax, Customs & Excise Departments), shall be taken up by either party for its resolution through AMRCD only.” (Emphasis suppled)

122. While there is no doubt that the present case involves two banks, and that both banks may be said to be CPSEs, however the nature of the dispute between  them by no stretch of imagination could be said to one pertaining to a commercial contract entered into between them. Rather, the dispute between them arises out of two separate agreements, that were executed by them with the borrower company herein, independent of each other. We are at a loss to understand, how the respondent bank could have ignored the aforesaid clause 3.3 of the AMRCD Memorandum and asserted that the dispute between it and the appellant bank ought to be resolved under the framework of the said memorandum.