TN-11

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KISHANGANJ

COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE OF INDIA, 1908

HYDEL MAESTRO CORP LIMITED

12 B.L. Sahana Road. Kishanganj, Mahanrashtra

(Claimant)

AND

DEL AGRO SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

221 Elvis Road, Patparganj, Mahanrashtra

(Respondent)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS: -

SR NO TOPIC PG NO
I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

II INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

III STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

IV STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

V STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10

VI SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11

VII ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 13

VIII PRAYER 23

2
 I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS: -

ABBREVIATIONS MEANING

Sec. Section
Par. Paragraph
& And
A.I.R. All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art. Article
H.C. High Court
Id. Ibid
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors Others
Pg. Page
r/w Read with
Pvt. Private
S.C. Section
U.O.I. Union of India
V./ Vs Versus
Vol. Volume
SCC Supreme Court Cases
AC Appeal Cases
All er All India Reporter
Ld. Learned

3
 II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES: -

LIST OF CASES

Sr. No. NAME OF THE CASES RELEVANT CITATION

1 State of Haryana And Anr. vs O.P. Singhal & Co AIR 1984 P H 358.

2 Brij Mahajan,, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi ITA No. 608/DEL/2012; 2017.

3 Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia (2017) 10 SCC 706

4 Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading 2019 SCC Online SC 358
Corporation

5 Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Private CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4028 OF
Limited, 2021 2020

6 Adarsh Kumar Khera vs Kewal Kishan Khera And O.M.P. 643/2007, CRL.M.As.
Ors. 13622/2015, 2073/2017, I.A.
10911/2016, 12188/2016,
15856/2016, 1557/2017,
1562/2017 & 559/2019

7 India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs Divya Ashish Jamwal O.M.P. 1107/2012

4
 LIST OF BOOKS

Sr. No. Name of the Book Author

1 Law of Contracts (A study of the contract act, Avtar Singh

1872) and specific relief act
2 Law of Contracts Bare act with short comments Professional Book
Publishers
3 Avtar Singh’s Arbitration and Conciliation and Sourav Bindal
Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems
4 The Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. LexisNexis
Bare act; universals LexisNexis

LIST OF INTERNET SOURCES

Sr. No Name of the Site

1 www.wexisnexusindia.com

2 www.heinonline.com

3 www.scconline.com

4 www.ipleaders.in

5
 III. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION: -

The Claimant has filed a petition with the Honourable High Court of Kishanganj,
Mahanrashtra, in accordance with Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, which establishes the
court's jurisdiction over pecuniary matters, and Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, which
establishes the court's jurisdiction over territorial matters.

6
 IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS: -

1. Hydel Maestro Corp is a newly formed private player in the agrarian economy of
Mahanrashtra. It intends to usher in a pivot to cash crops from the usual subsistence
farming most citizens are used to.

2. In its pursuit of quick expansion, the corporation has adopted unorthodox procedures
and practices that appear to be achieving remarkable success. Invigorated by their
pioneering track record with traditional cash crops such as cotton and jute, they've
decided to try their hand at establishing a sustainable winery.

3. Hydel Maestro Corp has been able to develop a variety of grape, resistant to the climatic
extremes of Mahanrashtra for which they credit their Chief Engineer Xavier
Sreenivasan. Such grapes however do not produce viable tannins for wine production
without adequate water, which the seasonal monsoons are unable to guarantee.

4. Del Agro Solutions is a Mahanrashtra based purveyor of quality irrigation solutions and
has more recently been at the forefront of global innovation hydroponics i.e., the
growing of plants without traditional soil. They have found great success in developing
massive olive groves for the extraction of olive oil at a commercially viable scale. Mr
Kulik Karnavati, their Chief Operations Officer, is credited for this success.

5. Hydel Maestro Corp and Del Agro Solutions struck a deal for the development of the
1st commercially viable vineyard in Mahanrashtra at the 2020 Dubai Expo, after
incidentally being situated in adjacent exhibition booths. The fine tuning and details of
this compact were transformed into a contract in February 2022 and work developing
the vineyard commenced. This contract was not executed at this time, with Del Agro
Solutions and Hydel Maestro Corp under the belief that it would be finalised and signed
after a site visit or similar undertaking.

6. The value of the EPC Contract was USD 700,000,000 ("Contract Price") in exchange
for which the Contractor was required to implement the Project in the following phases

7
 within six months (i) Design Phase and (ii) Procurement Phase. A portion of the
Contract Price was due upon completion of each of these two EPC Contract phases.

7. Everything was on track for the Design Phase to be finished by May 2022. This was
made possible by Hydel Maestro Corp's fast purchase of land.

8. Suddenly, Del Agro decided to terminate investment in the Hydel Maestro Corp project
due to non – fulfilment of the terms of contract. No delivery of the drip irrigation system
was to be expected. Repeated emails from Mr Xavier seeking clarification regarding
this turn of events received no response.

9. Hydel Maestro Corp invoked arbitration proceedings against Del Agro. A petition
under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act was filed before the High Court
of Kishanganj on 11th October 2022.

10. Del Agro objected to the petition's maintainability because there is no genuine
arbitration agreement. The judge referred the parties to arbitration, assigning a lone
arbitrator.

11. Throughout the arbitration proceedings, Del Agro contested Ld. Tribunal. The Tribunal
acknowledged and ruled that Section 16 Applications be heard during closing
arguments. Twenty-five arbitration hearings were held to resolve this dispute, with both
parties' CEOs cross-examined.

12. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator passed a detailed 'Final Award' running into 130 pages which
dealt with all arguments presented by the parties in detail and reasoning for the same
was also provided. During the final arguments neither party argued the Section 16
Application. The Tribunal concluded that it may not have jurisdiction in the instant
matter and referred the matter to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

13. Del Agro, thus challenged the observations made against it in the Final Award under
Section 34 on the grounds that there was no contract subsisting between the parties, that
the invocation of arbitration was premature and that the Section 16 petition ought to
have been decided as a preliminary issue.
8
14. The Claimant in response to the same has noted that an Application under Section 34
is not maintainable as the matter of contention is merely an Order under Section 16,
further that observations made against the Respondent are to be relied upon
subsequently by the Claimant and cannot be disregarded.

15. The Claimant has filed an application under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act alleging that the Tribunal erred in stating that it has no jurisdiction.
The Respondent has objected to the maintainability of the petition. Both petitions have
been listed for final arguments before a bench of the High Court of Kishanganj,
Mahanrashtra.

9
 V. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: -

I. WHETHER THERE EXISTS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TWO

PARTIES AND IF IT DOES, HAS IT BEEN BREACHED BY THE
RESPONDENT?

II. IS THE PETITION MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE

ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF
KISHANGANJ AND DOES THE Ld. ARBITRATOR HAVE VALID
JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE ACT?

III. CAN THE ARBITRAL AWARD BE SET ASIDE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT AND CAN THE SAME BE
MODIFIED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT?

10
 VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: -

1. WHETHER THERE EXISTS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE

PARTIES AND IF IT DOES, HAS IT BEEN BREACHED BY THE
RESPONDENT?
The purpose of the reasons that are presented in favour of this claim is to demonstrate
that there is a legally binding contract in place between the two parties. Even though
the contract has not been signed, its legality has not been compromised in any way, and
as a result, the contract is legally binding. The claimant is asserted to have suffered
losses as a direct result of the breach of contract, which is another argument that falls
under this issue.

2. IS THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE ARBITRATION &

CONCILIATION ACT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF
KISHANGANJ AND DOES THE Ld. ARBITRATOR HAS VALID
JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 16?
Under this issue, the arguments attempt to argue that the arbitration agreement can be
maintained in its current form. It also proves that the petition that was filed under
section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation act is valid and that the Supreme Court of
India did not disapprove of the idea of filing a petition under the aforementioned section
even though there was no arbitration agreement present. This was demonstrated by the
fact that the petition was filed.
The arguments presented under the same issue also attempt to justify the jurisdiction of
the Ld. Arbitrator in accordance with Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
statute, which was passed in 1996.

11
 3. CAN THE ARBITRAL AWARD BE SET ASIDE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE
ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT AND CAN THE SAME BE
MODIFIED UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT?
In Adarsh Kumar Khera v. Kewal Kishan Kheri, 20071, the arbitral award was set aside
since it was made without giving the parties a chance to be heard, and both parties
wanted it overturned. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996
specifies grounds for challenging an arbitral order rendered under Section 31. Under
this issue the arguments try to convince the court to set aside the Arbitral Award.
Also, An order that was handed down by a civil court or arbitrator may be challenged
through the process of appeal outlined in subsection (c) of section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act of 1996. The claimant is arguing that the order that was issued by
the Lord Arbitrator is unclear and should either be changed or sent back to the same
Arbitrator for further consideration.

1
Kewal Krishan Khera vs Adarsh Kumar Khera & Others on 22 January, 2019

12
 VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: -

I. WHETHER THERE EXISTS A VALID CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES

AND IF IT DOES, HAS IT BEEN BREACHED BY THE RESPONDENT?

a) Existence of a Valid Contract:

• In State of Haryana And Anr. vs O.P. Singhal & Co2., M/s. O. P. Singhal and
Company, through O. P. Singhal, filed the tender to the Executive Engineer PWD
(B&R), Hissar, for the execution of required work. His tender was accepted by the
Executive Engineer, and a letter of acceptance was sent to him.

However, no formal contract was put into, as required by Article 299 of the
Constitution. In the end, the contract was not carried out, and the parties blamed each
other for it. M/s. O. P. Singhal & Company filed a complaint on March 3, 1980, seeking
recovery of Rs. 4900/- plus interest and an injunction.

• The State of Haryana and the Executive Engineer filed an application for stay of the
suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the
grounds that the contract between the parties contained clause 25-A, which provided
for disputes to be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Engineer, PWD.

The plaintiff objected to the application, claiming that NO CONTRACT HAD BEEN
SIGNED and hence the arbitration clause was not applicable.

• The judgement in the aforementioned case stated that despite the fact that the parties
may have reached a comprehensive consensus on all of the parameters of their
arrangement and have no intention of deviating from these terms in the future, they may
have nevertheless decided to make the performance of the deal contingent upon the
signing of a formal instrument.

2
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs O.P. Singhal & Co.23 February, 1984;AIR 1984 P H 358.

13
• Even though the formal contract has not been signed in this circumstance, the courts
will very certainly rule that an agreement does exist and mandate particular
performance of the deal. Even though the price has not been set at this point, this could
still be the scenario.

• Nevertheless, if the most fundamental terms have not been settled upon by both parties,
there will be no agreement. On the other hand, there will not be an agreement if the
parties have made it very plain that they do not want to reach a conclusion to their
negotiations unless and until a legally binding contract has been drawn up and signed.

• Even if the terms of the written agreement match a party's intended terms, the intention
must be made clear that a party has reserved their right to withdraw from the deal prior
to the signing of an agreement.

• In this particular instance, there is unequivocal proof that the parties do not intend to
make a finished bargain only when a formal contract is executed. This is the case despite
the fact that there is a formal contract in place.

• As a result, there is no basis for challenging the validity of the Contract. As soon as the
contract is recognised as legally binding, the arbitration clause that is written into it will
become effective.

• The respondents in the case in hand submitted an appeal to the court that was almost
identical to the one submitted in the preceding case one. In addition to this, they argued
that the Contract's Arbitration Clause cannot be enforced because it was not signed by
any party, rendering it unenforceable.

• When all of the pertinent facts from the earlier case are taken into consideration, the
agreement is valid, as is the invocation of the arbitration clause that is included in the
agreement.

• The following is a list of crucial indicators indicating an agreement that has not been
signed can still be enforced:

14
 ➢ After reaching a consensus on all of the crucial aspects of the agreement, further
discussion of the contract was no longer possible;
➢ It is possible for the second party's signature to constitute acceptance of a definitive
contract that was issued by the first party but not signed;
➢ The parties' behaviour suggested that they want the agreement to be legally
binding.

• As both parties have begun working in earnest in accordance with the terms of the
agreement, it can be considered to be a valid agreement as their behaviour suggests
their willingness to enter into a contract.

• Additionally, the fact that the Designing phase was successfully finished is a testament
to the level of devotion displayed by both the claimant and the Respondent and their
unwillingness to actually edit any aspect of their Agreement.

a) i) Validity of the arbitration clause present in an Unsigned Agreement

• In the case of Brij Mahajan,, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi3, the Judgement clearly
stated that when read in conjunction with Section 2(b) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 7 mandates that parties come to an agreement that
disagreements or certain disputes involving defined legal relationships will be resolved
through arbitration.

• The arbitration agreement needs to be written down, despite the fact that, as
demonstrated in subsection (4) of section 7, an arbitration agreement can exist even if
it is not signed in certain circumstances, which are foreseen in clauses (b) and (c) of
subsection (4) of section 7 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996.

• Therefore, the respondent's allegations that Arbitration is not a viable method of

Dispute resolution due to the unsigned contract are irrelevant.

3
Brij Mahajan, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi; 27 December, 2017; ITA No. 608/DEL/2012; 2017.

15
 • Again, considering the ruling in Brij Mahajan, New Delhi v. Acit, New Delhi4, the
claimant's entitlement to utilise the Arbitration Clause against the respondent is
perfectly legitimate, valid and within his or her rights.

(b) Breach of Contract:

• As proved earlier, despite not being signed, there is a legitimate contract between the
two parties. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to anticipate the fulfilment of the
obligations outlined in the various sections of the contract.

• In this case, the Claimant completes their part of Obligation with utmost sincerity. They
Bought 57 acres of Land worth 500,000 USD, which is more than the market price.
This again highlights their intention to move forward with the project. The same was
expected from Del Agro as well.

• However, to the claimant's surprise, the Respondents refused to supply the key
equipment needed to proceed with the project, namely the drip irrigation materials.

• According to Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 18725; which highlights the
obligation of the parties to contract by stating that “Each party to a contract must either
fulfil their responsibilities or make a good faith effort to do so”.

• In the present case, the respondent sent an email dated September 11, 2022, in which it
was plainly stated that "their investment in the project has concluded," i.e. they will not
be supplying the Drip Irrigation Machinery that was originally agreed upon. This is,
thereby a clear violation of the aforementioned section and hence makes the respondent
liable for Breach of contract.

(c) Compensation:

4
Ibid refer note 2
5
Obligation of parties to contracts.; CHAPTER IV; OF THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS; Section 37;
THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

16
 • According to Section 736 of the Indian Contract Act, the party who has incurred
some damage or loss as a result of the breach of contract by the other party is entitled
to compensation.

• In the present instance, it has been established that the respondents have breached
their contract by failing to supply the required drip irrigation materials. Therefore,
a breach of contract has been proven prima facie, and the claimant has every right
to demand compensation.

• The claimant consequently demands an amount of USD 490,235,200 /-, or USD

Four Hundred Ninety Million Two Hundred Thirty-Five Million Two Hundred
Dollars.

• EXPLANATION:

The aforementioned number results from the breach of contract and non-completion
of the procurement phase, which accounts for 70 percent of the contract price, or
700 million dollars i.e. 490 million dollars.

In addition, the penalty for late delivery of the machinery to the claimant is 0.003%
of the outstanding contract price, or 0.003% of USD 490,000,000 each week. The
respondents are responsible for a penalty of USD 235,200 due to the 16-week delay.
Therefore, as stated previously, the claimant's just compensation demand amounts
to USD 490,235,200.

II. Is the petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act maintainable
before the High Court of Kishanganj and does the Ld Arbitration have valid
jurisdiction under Section 16?

6
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. Compensation for failure to discharge
obligation resembling those created by contract.; CHAPTER VI; OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF BREACH OF
CONTRACT; Section 73; THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

17
 a) Maintainability of the petition under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996
• The Supreme Court of India casts doubt on the legal ratio articulated in the case of
Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia7 in the context of the case of
Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga Trading Corporation8.

• The court has gained a more in-depth understanding of the order, which reveals that
the questions that need to be answered relate to two distinct aspects that are
nonetheless interconnected, namely:

a. The meaning of non-arbitrability and when the subject matter of the dispute is not
capable of being resolved through arbitration; and

b. The conundrum – "who decides" – whether the court at the reference stage or

• The second aspect also relates to the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the court at
the referral stage when an objection of non-arbitrability is raised to an application
under Section 8 or 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the
‘Arbitration Act’).

• In the case that was discussed earlier, the Supreme Court provided a lucid
interpretation of the Law Commission Report by stating that the validity of the
arbitration proceedings under Section 11 and Section 16 of the Act are two separate
components. This interpretation was provided in light of the fact that the parties in
question did not have a valid arbitration clause in place between them.

• Furthermore, the court has interpreted various legislations on the subject, some of
which may or may not have been bought by the Amendment Act of 2016 and 2018,
which deal with subject matters that cannot be put outside the purview of arbitration.

7
(2017) 10 SCC 706
8
2019 SCC Online SC 358

18
 Since these subject matters cannot be put outside the purview of arbitration, the
arbitration proceedings cannot be denied to the parties simply on the basis of the
absence of an arbitration clause.

• It is important to notice that paragraph 3 of the Vidya Drolia Case indicates that the
court will not reproduce and examine the factual matrix; instead, they will simply
respond to the legal problems that have been brought.

• Because the courts were only concerned with the legal concerns of the case while
the judgement was being rendered, any argument that is made regarding the factual
matrix of the case is immaterial regardless of whether or not it is stated.

• As a result, the Vidya Drolia Case is recognised as a legal precedent for the practise
of permitting parties to engage in arbitration even in situations that lack a valid
Arbitration Clause.

b)Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16

• During the course of these arbitration procedures, the respondents, Del Agro,
challenged the authority of the Ld. Tribunal by submitting an application under
Section 16. The Tribunal acknowledged this fact and issued an order noting that the
Section 16 Application will be considered during the stage reserved for final
arguments.

• The arbitral tribunal, in accordance with the kompetenz-kompetenz theory, is given

the right to decide on its own jurisdiction by virtue of Section 169 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, which was passed in 1996. According to Section 16, the
arbitral tribunal has the competence to decide whether or not it has the jurisdiction
to adjudicate the issue. This decision must be reached before the disagreement may
be resolved. In addition, the arbitral tribunal has the authority to make a decision

9
Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals; CHAPTER IV; . Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction.;
section 16; THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

19
 regarding any challenge to the existence of the arbitration agreement or its legal
standing.

• In accordance with Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a plea
should be filed in front of the arbitral tribunal in order to object to the arbitral
tribunal's jurisdiction. This objection needs to be voiced prior to the presentation of
the defence statement. Additionally, the mere fact that a party was involved in the
selection of an arbitrator does not preclude that party from making such an objection
later on in the process.

• In the current matter, there is no such thing as "inherent Jurisdiction," despite the
respondent's assertions to the contrary. The agreement that was made between the
parties serves as the basis for the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction when it comes to
deciding a specific issue. The authority of an arbitral tribunal cannot be traced back
to any one piece of legislation. The breadth of the arbitration agreement will be the
deciding factor in determining the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction, with the only
exception being any mandatory legislative enactments that control the arbitration
agreement.

III. Can the Arbitral Award be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act and can the same be modified under Section 37 of the Act?

a) Setting aside of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation

Act
• When the Final Award was passed, it was according to the Respondent not in good
conscience. As neither was the maintainability discussed and Ld. Sole Arbitrator took
note of the Section 16 application and held that the Tribunal may not have jurisdiction
in the instant matter. Hence in accordance with court proceedings, respondents
challenged the observations made against itself in the Final Award under Section 34 on
the grounds that there was no contract subsisting between the parties, that the invocation

20
 of arbitration was premature and that the Section 16 petition ought to have been decided
as a preliminary issue.

• Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 specifies grounds for
challenging an arbitral award rendered under Section 31.

• In order for a contract to be enforceable, all of its essential elements must be met. If the
contract is illegal, the arbitration agreement will be declared void as well, and the
arbitral award can be revoked. In Adarsh Kumar Khera v. Kewal Kishan Khera,
200710, the arbitral award was set aside since it was made without giving the parties a
chance to be heard, it was deemed void, and both parties wanted it overturned.

• The arbitral award will be challenged if it deals with an issue that is not addressed by
the arbitration agreement or contains decisions on subjects that are outside the scope of
the arbitration agreement. Also, if the judgments on items submitted to arbitration can
be differentiated from those not so submitted, only that portion of the arbitral award,
including decisions on subjects not submitted to arbitration, may be set aside.

• In India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. Divya Ashish Jamwal 201911, the arbitral award
was set aside because it was issued in violation of the contract’s provisions, without
taking into account relevant evidence on file, and based on assumptions.

• Further, in Rulia Mal Amarchand v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 201912,

it was held that the arbitrator should have limited himself to the problems and
agreement that had been presented for arbitration.

b) Modification of the Arbitral Award under section 37

10
Adarsh Kumar Khera vs Kewal Kishan Khera And Ors. 16 January, 2019; O.M.P. 643/2007, CRL.M.As.
13622/2015, 2073/2017, I.A. 10911/2016, 12188/2016, 15856/2016, 1557/2017, 1562/2017 & 559/2019

11
India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs Divya Ashish Jamwal; 30 January, 2019; O.M.P. 1107/2012
12
M/S Rulia Mal Amar Chand vs Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.; 5 February, 2019; O.M.P. 505/2006

21
 • A supplementary application in accordance with Section 37 has been submitted by
the Claimant.

• The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 3713 allows for appeals to be
filed against orders made by the court or, alternatively, an arbitrator.

• In the case of Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Private Limited, 202114,
it was decided that an appeal can be filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order issued by the Civil Court or an
Arbitrator. This appeal was found to be both maintainable and permissible.

• The application under Section 16 was not pursued by either party; consequently, the
claimant pursued an action under Section 37 because the Tribunal made an error in
asserting that it lacked jurisdiction. The claimant is pleading that the order that was
handed down by the Lord Arbitrator is ambiguous and should either be modified or
be relegated back to the same Arbitrator for adjudication in accordance with the
wishes of the court.

13
Appeals; CHAPTER IX; Appealable orders; section 37; THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996
14
Chintels India Ltd. vs Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. 11 February, 2021; CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4028 OF 2020

22
 VIII. PRAYER: -

Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given, and
authorities cited, it is humbly prayed before the Tribunal to adjudge and declare:

I. That the court shall deliver the claimant with the 'Final Award' as determined by the
Learned Arbitrator, which includes all of the damages sustained by the plaintiff.

II. That the Court should regard the Section 16 order issued by the Learned Arbitrator
declaring that "The Tribunal may not have jurisdiction in the present matter" to be
ambiguous and modify or remand the matter back to the same Arbitrator for
determination.

III. That the Hon'ble High Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which it may
deem fit in light of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this the Claimant, as is duty bound shall forever humbly pray. All of which is
respectfully submitted.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Sd/-

(Counsels for the Claimant)

23