Clause 20.4(4) of FIDIC provides that the decision of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) 'shall be binding on both parties, who shall promptly give effect to it unless and until it shall be revised in an amicable settlement or an arbitral award.' Clause 20.4(5) provides that if either party is dissatisfied with the DAB's decision it can give notice of dissatisfaction within 28 days. Clause 20.4(7) says that a DAB decision becomes final and binding if neither party files a notice of dissatisfaction within a 28-day period. And Clause 20.6(1) says that in cases where the DAB's decision has not become final and binding the matter shall be resolved by arbitration or agreement. 

What happened here was that there was a dispute between the parties, the dispute went to the DAB, and the DAB made a decision, and the DBT Technologies gave notice of dissatisfaction within the 28-day period. The legal issue that arose was this: was DBT Technologies  obliged to give effect to the DAB's decision pending the decision of the arbitrator? Tubular Holding obviously argued that it was, but DBT Technologies took the position that the filing of the notice of dissatisfaction undid the effect of the DAB's decision...