SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The challenge to the arbitral award is fashioned on a prohibitory clause contained in the last sentence of clause 3.20 of the agreement between the parties. Such sentence mandates: "No arbitration proceedings on this account."
(2.) But more of the relevant clause and the arbitration agreement contained in the matrix contract later. The story as it has unfolded in course of the relationship between the parties, their sojourn in courts and before the arbitral tribunal must first be briefly recounted.
(3.) The appellant herein, which is the Administration in these islands, hires contractors for manning and plying vessels here. The respondent was engaged for such purpose for manning a vessel by the name of MV Long Island. The agreement for such purpose was executed on December 16, 2008 for a specified monthly sum of about Rs. 12.67 lakh. The case of the appellant is that the vessel was damaged as it ran aground near Campbell Bay on July 6, 2009 due to negligence on the part of the respondent, which rendered the vessel unusable for a considerable period of time. A claim for damages was levied on the respondent; the security deposit was forfeited and the performance guarantee furnished by the respondent was encashed. The respondent disputed the right of the appellant herein to adjust the security deposit and performance guarantee against the claim of damages and sought a reference of the disputes that had arisen between the parties to arbitration.;