Harmonious construction of competing arbitration clauses led the SC to apply the later agreement and reject fresh appointment.

A continuing commercial arrangement was governed by purchase orders and a later comprehensive agreement containing a separate ICC arbitration clause. Applying harmonious construction, the SC held that disputes concerning pricing, payment, deductions and recovery fell within the later agreement because it dealt specifically with those matters and the broader contractual framework. Since arbitration had already been invoked under that agreement and an arbitral tribunal had been constituted, a fresh appointment under the purchase orders was not maintainable. The challenge to the existing tribunal also failed, as the later agreement's arbitration mechanism governed the dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a transaction governed by both purchase orders and a subsequent comprehensive agreement containing different arbitration clauses, the arbitration clause in the subsequent agreement would prevail for disputes relating to price, payment, deductions and recovery, and whether appointment of an arbitrator under the purchase orders was maintainable.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a continuing commercial arrangement covered by two sets of contractual documents. The purchase orders contained one arbitration mechanism, while the later agreement dealt comprehensively with pricing, payment, reconciliation and related disputes and also contained a separate ICC arbitration clause. The Court applied the principle of harmonious construction to reconcile the two clauses and examined the substance of the dispute. Since the controversy related chiefly to pricing, deductions, payment and recovery under the broader arrangement, it held that those matters fell within the later agreement. The record also showed that arbitration had already been invoked under that agreement and an arbitral tribunal had been constituted.

Conclusion: The arbitration clause in the later agreement governed the dispute, and the request to appoint an arbitrator under the purchase orders was not maintainable. The challenge to the already constituted tribunal also failed.

---