Personal Note – The Supreme Court has stated in a case that “in our view, an attempt must be

made if the disputes between the two public sector enterprises could be settled through AMRCD.
If any settlement is brought about through such an attempt, it will not only save public funds, but
will ensure the true spirit of coordination amongst different public bodies. Guided purely by
these considerations, we direct all the three parties i.e. MTNL, Canara Bank, and Canfina, to
approach Amrcd for settlement of their disputes. If, however, the disputes are not settled by 15-
1-2020 the disputes will then be resolved through the pending arbitration proceedings as
directed vide the judgment and order dated 8-8-2019 MTNL v. Canara Bank” (Case Note
below No.1)
The Delhi High Court has stated that AMRCD is only a mechanism for possible settlement of
disputes between the governmental organizations and it is not a substitute for Arbitration in case
there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. (Case note substantiated below No.
HOWEVER, in that particular case, there was just an MoU signed between the parties that they
would refer their matter to AMRCD but before it could, one party withdrew its consent and
wanted the dispute to be referred to arbitration.

As for the finality of AMRCD settlements, it depends on the terms of the settlement. However,
by a 2022 office memorandum (attached below) the Department of Public Enterprise. Ministry of
Finance issued revised guidelines for all contracts between Central Public Sector Enterprises
(CPSEs) inter se and also between CPSEs and Government Departments/Organizations to have
the clause as:

“6. Arbitration Clause

6.1 All CPSEs will ensure inclusion of a clause in all the existing and future commercial
contracts between CPSEs, inter-se and CPSEs and Government Departments/Organizations as
under: - "In the event of any dispute or difference relating to the interpretation and application
of the provisions of commercial contract(s) between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) I
Port Trusts inter se and also between CPSEs. and Government Departments/Organizations
(excluding disputes relating to Railways, Income Tax, Customs & Excise Departments), such
dispute or difference shall be taken up by either party for its resolution through AMRCD as
mentioned in DPE OM No. 05/0003/2019-FTS-10937 dated 14th December, 2022 and the
decision of AMRCD on the said dispute will be binding on both the parties.,,”

I could not find a case where specifically it was allowed to refer the dispute to arbitration after
settlement through AMRCD.
1. MTNL vs Canara Bank (Supreme Court – 2019)

Facts: The present miscellaneous application has been filed by the appellant MTNL
in MTNL v. Canara Bank which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8-8-2019
passed by this Court directing that Canfina — a wholly owned subsidiary of Respondent 1 —
Canara Bank be impleaded in the arbitral proceedings pending between the parties.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the counsel for the appellant had made an oral submission to
refer the matter to the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD).
This Court however took note that on two earlier occasions, the matter had been referred to the
Committee of Disputes of the Permanent Machinery of Arbitration (PMA), on 27-3-2001 and
subsequently on 30-5-2008. On both these occasions, the disputes remained unresolved, which
also led to loss of time in resolution of the disputes. Since the disputes had been pending for over
25 years, this Court remitted the matter to be resolved through the pending arbitration.
The appellants have now filed the present application for reference of the disputes between the
parties to the Administrative Mechanism for Resolution of CPSEs Disputes (AMRCD) in
substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Government of India has now set up AMRCD, which has replaced the Permanent
Machinery of Arbitration (PMA). The objective of AMRCD is to bring about a time-bound
settlement of commercial disputes between Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) inter se
and CPSE and Government Departments/Organizations.

Findings:

Paragraph 7: “We have considered the submissions made by the parties. Though as a logical
sequitur to the judgment dated 8-8-2019, Canfina stands impleaded in the pending arbitral
proceedings which ought to be taken to the logical conclusion, in our view, an attempt must be
made if the disputes between the two public sector enterprises could be settled through AMRCD.
If any settlement is brought about through such an attempt, it will not only save public funds, but
will ensure the true spirit of coordination amongst different public bodies. Guided purely by
these considerations, we direct all the three parties i.e. MTNL, Canara Bank, and Canfina, to
approach AMRCD for settlement of their disputes. If, however, the disputes are not settled by
15-1-2020 the disputes will then be resolved through the pending arbitration proceedings as
directed vide the judgment and order dated 8-8-2019.”
2. Prasar Bharti vs National Brain Research Centre and Anr. (Delhi High Court – 2022)

Facts: By way of the present petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 the petitioner/Prasar Bharti seeks termination of the mandate of the learned Sole
Arbitrator appointed vide order dated 12-2-2020 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in National
Brain Research Centre v. Prasar Bharti under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act. The learned
arbitrator is stated to be seized of the disputes between the parties arising from an agreement
dated 1-6-2010 signed between the petitioner and Respondent 1, though by reason of pendency
of the present petition, at this time no arbitral proceedings between the petitioner and Respondent
1 are stated to be going on.

Insofar as Respondent 2 is concerned, it is the petitioner's submission, that the disputes between
the petitioner and Respondent 2 have been decided and resolved by way of an interim award
dated 21-11-2019 made by a different arbitrator; and the learned arbitrator in the present matter
is seized only of the disputes between the petitioner and Respondent 1.

Contention of the Counsel: Mr. P.S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
supported his prayer for termination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator essentially on the
following basis:

(a) That though the learned arbitrator had been appointed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 12-2-2020, soon thereafter vide Office Memorandum No.
334774/DoLA/AMRD/2019 dated 30-3-2020 (the “said OM”) the Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs of the Government of India has advised as follows:

“Instructions have been issued to Ministries/Departments of the Governments of India, in the

(b) It is accordingly the submission that the petitioner is now under mandate to adopt and follow
the institutionalised mechanism for resolution of disputes as contained in the said OM since
Respondent 1 falls within the purview of the entities covered by it.

(c) It is further the petitioner's contention that in view of the said OM, the petitioner and
Respondent 1 have mutually and amicably agreed, vide memorandum of settlement dated 10-3-
2021 signed between them, to terminate the mandate of the learned arbitrator and to adopt the
administrative mechanism as contained in the OM.
Findings:

Paragraph 6: “In the opinion of this Court, the decision of the present case turns upon the
following considerations:
“Though it cannot be gainsaid that Respondent 1 falls within the scope and ambit of the AMRD,
first and foremost AMRD is a mechanism for settlement of commercial disputes between certain
governmental organizations and departments and is a successor to the permanent machinery of
arbitration (“PMA”) which was put in place in March 1989. The intent, purport and purpose of
the AMRD, following upon that of the PMA, is best understood in the words of the Supreme
Court in Northern Coalfields Ltd. v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd., and in the subsequent order of the
Supreme Court in MTNL v. Canara Bank, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:”

Paragraph 7: “Clearly therefore, the AMRD is only a mechanism for possible settlement of
disputes inter se governmental organisations, in this case between the petitioner and Respondent
1, in an effort to obviate need for more expensive and time-consuming adjudicatory mechanisms.
The AMRD is not a substitute for arbitration in cases where there is an arbitration agreement
between the parties.”
Paragraph 8: “In the present case, a learned arbitrator has already been appointed to adjudicate
upon the disputes between the petitioner and Respondent 1 vide order dated 12-2-2020 made in
Arb. P. No. 799 of 2019; and is already seized of the matter, having issued notice dated 11-3-
2020 calling-upon the parties to fix a date for the preliminary meeting in April 2020 under the
aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (“DIAC”). To be sure, the learned arbitrator
was appointed before the said OM came to be issued on 31-3-2020.”

Paragraph 12: “In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no
ground is made-out for termination of the mandate of the learned arbitrator who is seized of the
proceedings in the matter, least of all as contemplated in Section 14(1) of the A&C Act.”