As per the case facts, the appellant and respondent entered into a contract for transportation/handling of goods, and disputes arose during the contract's term. The appellant sought to have the ... disputes referred to arbitration, but the High Court dismissed the application, stating that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties. The appellant then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The question arose whether Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the contract constituted a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, thereby mandating the reference of disputes to arbitration. Finally, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision, holding that Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions did not constitute an arbitration agreement. Since the appellant did not claim that the parties had later agreed to refer disputes to arbitration, the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for arbitrator appointment. The Court also noted that another clause in the contract, Clause 32, only fixed jurisdiction and would determine the juridical seat if an arbitration agreement existed, but it did not, in itself, exclude dispute resolution through arbitration or constitute an agreement to arbitrate. Therefore, the appeal failed.