Arbitration clause in supply contracts bars writ relief where no express extension of delivery time is shown.

A commercial supply contract dispute turned on whether time for delivery had been extended and whether writ relief was available despite an arbitration clause. No implied extension was inferred from later correspondence or duty exemption certificates because the contract required an express extension at the buyer's discretion; the delivery period therefore remained unextended and cancellation could not be disturbed on that basis. The dispute was also held to fall within a valid arbitration agreement, and no exceptional ground justified writ intervention in a commercial contract matter. The parties were therefore directed to pursue arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether extension of the delivery period for the supply contract could be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the custom duty exemption certificates; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the supply order.

Issue (i): whether extension of the delivery period for the supply contract could be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the custom duty exemption certificates.

Analysis: The request for extension was made up to 20.09.2011, but the goods were actually delivered only on 07.10.2011. The supply order expressly empowered the buyer to cancel the order unilaterally if delivery was not made within the stipulated period, and any extension was left to the buyer's sole discretion. In the absence of an express communication extending time, no implied extension could be presumed from the subsequent correspondence or exemption certificates.

Conclusion: The delivery period was not extended, and the cancellation of the supply order could not be dislodged on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the supply order.

Analysis: The supply order contained an arbitration clause covering disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract. The governing arbitration statute barred judicial intervention in matters covered by that Act. The arbitration agreement satisfied the essential elements of a valid arbitration agreement, and the dispute was therefore one that had to be pursued through arbitration rather than writ jurisdiction. The Court also found no exceptional ground warranting exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction in a commercial contract dispute of this nature.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the parties were required to be relegated to arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, the finding sustaining the arbitration objection was upheld, and the remaining findings were set aside, leaving the parties to resolve the dispute through arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commercial supply contract contains a valid arbitration clause covering the dispute, and no express extension of time for performance is shown, the High Court should not exercise writ jurisdiction and the remedy lies in arbitration.

---