SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking restoration of the main petition filed under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiffs and defendant are both Government companies and in terms of the order dated 1. 8. 2001 the suit was dismissed on the ground that the parties are liable to settle their disputes through the mechanism provided in pursuance to the judgement of the Apex Court. The matter went to the High Power Committee but the Committee rejected the reference on the plea of the plaintiffs that the matter involved private parties. ( 2 ) ON 17. 4. 2007 this aspect was examined and it was also considered appropriate to direct both the parties to file their affidavits explaining certain aspects as mentioned in the said order including in respect of proceedings stated to have been initiated for arbitration in the FICCI and the material available today for adjudication of the disputes since the original dispute pertains to the 1970s. No settlement has been possible. The defendant has filed the affidavit. The plaintiffs have failed to file the affidavit. ( 3 ) BE that as it may I deem it appropriate to allow the application and hear the main suit on merits. ( 4 ) THE suit is filed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration in view of the existence of an arbitration agreement in respect of the contract between the parties. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contours of the dispute some facts have to be set out. The plaintiffs had entered into a contract dated 23. 10. 1970 with a yugoslavian entity named Community of Yugoslav Railways. This was called the export contract in terms whereof the plaintiffs were to manufacture and supply certain number of wagons to the Yugoslavian firm. The plaintiffs also entered into separate contracts with M/s. Texmaco, M/s. Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. , M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd. , M/s. Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. and M/s. Jessop and Co. Ltd. M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd and M/s. Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. are stated to have been subsequently amalgamated and are now known as Burn Standard Co. Ltd. , M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd. , M/s. Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. and M/s. Jessop and Co. Ltd. M/s. Burn and Co. Ltd and M/s. Indian Standard Wagon Co. Ltd. are stated to have been subsequently amalgamated and are now known as Burn Standard Co. Ltd. ( 6 ) THE disputes and differences arose between the parties with the Yugoslavian firm arrayed on the one side and the STC and other manufacturers on the other. These disputes were resolved through a settlement agreement between the parties arrived at on 1. 11. 1979. All these parties are signatories to the agreement. It is necessary to reproduce some of the salient terms of the settlement, which are as under: "terms OF SETTLEMENT (1)It is agreed that a total sum of Rs. 3,909,600 (Rupees three million nine hundred nine thousand six hundred) already recovered by the ZTFs under the performance bank guarantees furnished by STC in their favour, (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by the Yugoslav side), is in full and final settlement and satisfaction of all claims, demands, dues, whatsoever, present or future, of the Indian side and the Yugoslav side, against each other, jointly or severally in consequence of the said payment of Rs. 3,909,600 (Rupees three million nine hundred nine thousand six hundred) to the intent and purpose that the respective Indian side and Yugoslav side stand completely discharged of all obligations subject however to the stipulations contained in clauses (6), (7) and (8) of this Agreement. (2)It is agreed that neither the Indian side nor the Yugoslav side, jointly or severally, shall continue or institute any arbitration or other proceedings whatsoever against any of them in relation to any right, obligation, claim, demand or dues whatsoever arising by virtue of any contracts or agreements or otherwise including the subject matter of any pending arbitration proceedings and the same shall be deemed to be extinguished for all purposes whatsoever by virtue of this Agreement subject however to the stipulating contained in clauses (6), (7) and (8) hereinafter. " ( 7 ) A reading of the aforesaid shows that amounts were determined to be paid to m/s. STC in full and final settlement and satisfaction of all claims of whatever nature "present or future". It is not even in dispute that this amount stands paid. " ( 7 ) A reading of the aforesaid shows that amounts were determined to be paid to m/s. STC in full and final settlement and satisfaction of all claims of whatever nature "present or future". It is not even in dispute that this amount stands paid. ( 8 ) IT is in view thereof that the plea of the defendant is that there is no dispute which is liable to be referred to arbitration. Learned counsel submits that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Nathani Steel Ltd. Vs. Associated Constructions 1995 suppl. (3) SCC 324 it is the bounden duty of the court to first come to a conclusion whether disputes or differences do exist which are arbitrable. Once the disputes between the parties are amicably settled by way of settlement no one party can spurn the settlement unless settlement as a whole is set aside. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand contends that one of the parties to the agreement M/s. Texmaco Limited did not abide by the agreement and proceedings were filed in this Court in CS (OS) No. 1413a/1991 for reference of disputes to arbitration. The disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of justice S. S. Chadha (Retd.) who had made and published his award against the plaintiffs. It is thus the plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that this would give rise to certain liabilities of the plaintiffs which are liable to be compensated or distributed between the other parties to the agreement dated 1. 11. 1979 and it is in view thereof that the disputes are liable to be referred to the arbitration. ( 10 ) I am unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the plaintiff for the reason that undisputedly the defendant herein was not a party to the arbitration. The defendant never chose to challenge the settlement. The plaintiffs accepted the amounts stipulated in the settlement dated 1. 11. 1979 in full and final satisfaction of the claim. The settlement terms itself provided that this would foreclose any dispute including in respect of the future. The defendant never chose to challenge the settlement. The plaintiffs accepted the amounts stipulated in the settlement dated 1. 11. 1979 in full and final satisfaction of the claim. The settlement terms itself provided that this would foreclose any dispute including in respect of the future. Thus, even if it is assumed that a future dispute has arisen on account of the arbitral award arising from the litigation between the plaintiffs and M/s. Texmaco Company Limited, it is not open to the plaintiffs to reopen the chapter so far as defendant is concerned. All disputes between the present parties have been put to rest in view of the settlement arrived at on 1. 11. 1979 and the payment made in pursuance thereto by the defendant and accepted by the plaintiffs. I am thus of the considered view that there are no disputes which are liable to be referred to the arbitration. Dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.