Arbitration Case No.167 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Arbitration Case No.167 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22 - 05 - 2008 CMC Limited ....Petitioner through Mr.N.S.Bawa , Advocate v. Union of India and another ....Respondents through Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This petition was filed on 23.5.2006. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into all the averments raised in this petition because learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record a letter dated 12.7.2006 written by the petitioner. While placing reliance on that letter, learned counsel for the respondents contended that after this petition was filed and notice thereof was received by the respondents, the discussions took place which culminated into an agreement where all the issues were resolved and Arbitration Case No.167 of 2008 [2] no dispute remains between the parties. Letter dated 12.7.2006 has not been placed on record by the petitioner. Confronted with this letter, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, wherein a stand has been taken that payments on account of Oracle ATS have not been made and qua those payments there is a dispute which is still to be decided. I have gone through the letter dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure R-7). I am afraid that any dispute survives between the parties. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is simply an after thought act. Mr.Puneet Jindal, learned counsel for the respondents very fairly states that pursuant to the contract, the petitioner was to provide maintenance services on old rates and the value of the annual maintenance contract was Rs.12,48,496/-. He further states that even an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- towards the pending payments has also been paid to the petitioner and that the bank guarantee furnished by it has also been released. He further states that with regard to payment qua Oracle ATS, the petitioner has to perform certain obligations and the respondents have also to perform certain obligations and on performance of those obligations the payment will be released to the petitioner. Let it be done. The contents of letters dated 12.7.2008 and the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents clearly show that it is a case of no dispute pending between the parties as the same has been amicably settled. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) May 22, 2008 CHIEF JUSTICE RC Arbitration Case No.167 of 2008 [3]