Summary: Mr. M. Arumugam wanted a neutral third party to settle a payment argument with M/S CP Foods, but the court rejected the request. The decision focused on whether the word "may" in their agreement meant using a neutral third party was optional.
Mr. M. Arumugam, a trader since 2011, supplied different types of lentils to M/S CP Foods. By 2022, he claimed he was owed a large commission of over 7 crores but only received a portion. Attempts to resolve this failed, leading to a formal warning in 2024.
After M/S CP Foods ignored the formal warning, Mr. Arumugam wanted to involve a neutral third party based on an offer letter from 2015. However, M/S CP Foods argued that involving a neutral third party wasn't required, pointing out the word "may" in the agreement.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh looked into whether "may" meant there was a choice rather than a requirement to involve a neutral third party. The court noted past decisions where similar wording was seen as optional, stressing that both parties needed to agree to involve a neutral third party.
"The wording of clause 13 does not show a binding agreement..." - Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
The court decided the offer letter didn't require involving a neutral third party without both parties agreeing. Thus, Mr. Arumugam's request was rejected, but he was allowed to try other legal options.
