Bombay High Court
Affluence Media vs Pinka Studios Pvt. Ltd. And 4 Ors on 15 September, 2021
Author: B.P. Colabawalla
Bench: B.P. Colabawalla
(12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16504 OF 2021
Digitally signed by
ANJALI ANJALI TUSHAR
TUSHAR ASWALE
Date: 2021.09.20
ASWALE 16:26:06 +0530
M/s. Affluence Media ... Petitioner
Vs
Pinaka Studios Private Limited & ors. ... Respondents
Prathamesh Kamat a/w Gurdeep Singh Sachar for the
Petitioner.
Rashmin Khandekar a/w Karishni Khanna & Ekta Jhaveri i/b.
MZD Legal Consultancy for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Nielsh Pandey for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2021 P.C. :
1. The above Petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the "Arbitration Act") seeking the following reliefs:
"a. that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to jointly and/or severally Vina Khadpe, PA Page 1 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc deposit a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only), with the Petitioner in terms of the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021, (at Ex.B), along with interest on the default amount at @ 18 (Eighteen) % p.a., from date of default till the deposit of the aforesaid amount;
b In the alternative to prayer (a), the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and/or severally be directed to furnish a bank guarantee and/or any other soluble securities which is sufficient to secure the amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Only) along with interest @18% p.a. from date of default till the date of furnishing of such bank guarantee or other securities;
c that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 their agents, servants, employees and any third person claiming through them from encumbering and/or transferring and/or alienating and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II"
d that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order and injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 their agents, servants, employees and any third person claiming through them, from exhibiting and streaming the web series"RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II" , or any part of the same in any form including by way of promotional posters, trailers or allied publications in any language."
2. The disputes between the parties arise out of an Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the directors of Respondent No.1. Mr. Kamat, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has fairly stated Vina Khadpe, PA Page 2 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no personal liability towards the Petitioner and hence the reliefs he seeks in the present Petition are only against Respondent No.1.
3. The Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 contains an Arbitration Agreement between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 as reflected in Clause 14 thereof, which reads thus:
"14) In the event of any dispute or differences arising between the parties hereto either during the subsistence of these presents; or thereafter touching these presents or the interpretation of the "Terms and Conditions" herein contained or as regards the breach or non-performance or non-observance of any of the conditions herein contained the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration who shall be solely appointed by the Party of the Other Part and Party of the One Part herein shall not raise any dispute for the same appointment, who will have summary powers to decide such disputes or differences and whose decision shall be final and binding on the parties. The said Arbitration shall be in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended up to date) or any statutory modification or Re-enactment thereof". The seat and Venue of Arbitration shall be Mumbai and the language of the arbitration shall be English."
4. The existence of the Arbitration clause has not been disputed, either by the Petitioner or Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5. The brief facts of this case would reveal that by a Co-Production Agreement dated 30th December, 2020 executed Vina Khadpe, PA Page 3 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, the Petitioner was to finance the making and production of the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II". The consideration to be paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 under the said Agreement was an amount of Rs.60 Lakhs. It is not in dispute that this amount has been paid by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1.
6. Thereafter, the aforesaid Agreement dated 30th December, 2020 was terminated and substituted by an Agreement dated 11th June, 2021. The present disputes arise under this Agreement. In this Agreement, Respondent No.1 is described as the party of the "One Part" and the Petitioner is described as the party of the "Other Part". The relevant clauses of this Agreement read thus:
"2 The Party of the One Part has paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Only) to the Party of the Other Part, the details as stated herein-under:-
Sum Date Bank Details Rs.2,00,000/- 04.01.2021 RTGS-REFNO (ICICR22021010400012415) Rs.10,00,000/- 29.01.2021 RTGS-REFNO (ICICR22021012900014122) Rs.5,00,000/- 15.02.2021 RTGS-REFNO (ICICR22021021500011053) Rs.10,00,000/- 16.04.2021 Cheque bearing no.000212 drawn on ICICI Bank, Andheri link road Branch.Vina Khadpe, PA Page 4 of 21
(12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc 3 The in addition to the aforesaid amount as stated in para 2 hereinabove, the Party of the One Part has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) to the Party of the Other Part, as and by way of full and final settlement of dues of the Party of the Other Part in terms of the said Agreement.
4 The party of the One Part hereby doth unequivocally and unconditionally record, declare and admit to repay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) unto the party of the Other Part on or before the date of 15th August, 2021. That in case of default by whatsoever manner, without prejudice to the other rights of the Party of the Other Party in terms of the present Agreement, the Party of the One Part unequivocally agree to pay compensation on the default amount at @ 18 (Eighteen) % p.a., till the payment and realisation of the aforesaid amount.
5 The party of the One Part doth hereby undertake declare, assure and promise to the party of the Other Part that it shall pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only) as under:
Sr. No. Sum By post-dated cheque
(particulars)
1 15,00,000/- Cheque bearing No.000429 dated 14th
June, 2021 drawn on ICICI Bank,
Andheri Link Road Branch
2 15,00,000/- Cheque bearing No.000430 dated 5th
July, 2021 drawn on ICICI Bank,
Andheri Link Road Branch
3 15,00,000/- Cheque bearing No.000431 dated 10th
August, 2021 drawn on ICICI Bank,
Andheri Link Road Branch
6 The Party of One Part hereby agrees in equivocal term and
gives authority to the Party of the Other Part to Deposit the PDC's, without any prior written confirmation of the Party of the One Part and for the same purpose the Party of the One Part shall keep sufficient funds in its accounts for the Purpose of honouring the aforesaid Cheque in terms of clause 5 hereinabove. Any extension of time for repayment as agreed aforesaid shall be at the sole discretion of the Party of the Other Part hereto.
*************** Vina Khadpe, PA Page 5 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc 13 This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding between all the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and shall form part and parcel of the present agreement."
7. This agreement clearly stipulates that a sum of Rs.27 Lakhs is already paid by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner and the balance sum of Rs.45 lakhs shall be paid to the Petitioner on or before 15th August 2021. Towards this liability of Rs.45 Lakhs, the Agreement itself records that post- dated cheques have been given to the Petitioner as more particularly set out in Clause 5 thereof.
8. Mr. Kamat states that under the said Agreement, the Petitioner was supposed to pay a sum of Rs.45 Lakhs by 15th August, 2021. However, Respondent No.1 has paid only a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on 16th June, 2021 and has made no further payment. He, therefore, submitted that looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be in the interest of justice if Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of default till the deposit of the aforesaid amount. Mr. Kamat submitted that he presses this relief in light of the fact Vina Khadpe, PA Page 6 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc that Respondent No.1 has absolutely no defence with reference to the payability of the aforesaid amount of Rs.35 Lakhs. In such circumstances, an order of deposit is wholly justified, was the submission of Mr. Kamat. In support of this proposition, Mr. Kamat relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of (i) Jagdish Ahuja v. Cupino Limited [2020 SCC OnLine Bom 849]; and a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of (ii) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. & anr [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 305]. In addition to the aforesaid relief, Mr. Kamat submitted that appropriate injunction orders also be passed against Respondent No.1.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submitted that the present Petition is not maintainable before this Court and this Petition ought to be dismissed with costs. According to Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition without any cause of action. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 further submitted that under the Agreement dated 30th Vina Khadpe, PA Page 7 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc December, 2020, it was the liability of Respondent No.1 to re- pay the sum of Rs.60 Lakhs. However, there was no time frame mentioned in the said Agreement for the aforesaid repayment and hence there can be no question of directing the 1st Respondent to deposit any amount in this Court.
10. Without prejudice to the aforesaid argument, Mr. Pandey, the learned advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, submitted that the time to make the payment of Rs.45 lakhs under the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 was till 15th August, 2021. However, before the aforesaid period expired, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Petition on 30th July, 2021. The learned advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 submitted that because of this action of the Petitioner (i.e. approaching this Court under Section 9 before 15th August, 2021), Respondent No.1 has suffered huge losses as Respondent Nos.4 and 5 terminated their contract with Respondent No.1 for making and producing the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II". He submitted that in the Arbitration, Respondent No.1 will have a huge claim against the Petitioner. Therefore, no order of deposit ought to be made, Vina Khadpe, PA Page 8 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc was the submission. For all the aforesaid reasons, Mr. Pandey submitted that the Petition be dismissed with costs.
11. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties at a great length and have perused the papers and proceedings in the above Petition. As mentioned earlier, initially there was an Agreement dated 30th December, 2020 entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. The said Agreement was styled as a Co-Production Agreement. The consideration to be paid by the Petitioner under this Agreement was a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs which was to be used for making and producing the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II". It is an admitted position that the Petitioner has paid the said sum of Rs.60 Lakhs to Respondent No.1. The said Agreement itself provided that this amount of Rs.60 Lakhs would be repayable by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner on a monthly basis of Rs.12 Lakhs per month (for 5 months). It is true that this Agreement does not have any time frame within which the amount of Rs.60 Lakhs was to be repaid to the Petitioner. However, this Agreement was thereafter terminated and substituted by the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 entered into between the Vina Khadpe, PA Page 9 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc Petitioner and Respondent No.1. In fact, the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 acknowledges that the Petitioner had financed the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II" in the sum of Rs.60 Lakhs and because of differences between the parties, they have agreed to terminate the Co-Production Agreement dated 30th December, 2020 on the terms and conditions more particularly as set out in the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021. The Agreement dated 11th June, 2021 clearly crystallized the liability of Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner. It records that a sum of Rs.27 Lakhs has already been paid and a further sum of Rs.45 Lakhs shall be paid by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner latest by 15th August, 2021. In fact, this Agreement also sets out the details of the post-dated cheques given by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that when those post-dated cheques were presented for payment on their due dates, they have been dishonoured. Apart from making a payment of Rs.10 Lakhs, no other sum has been paid by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner. The justification for this non-payment, as set out earlier, is that (i) there was no time frame to make the aforesaid payment; and (ii) because of the actions of the Petitioner (by approaching this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act Vina Khadpe, PA Page 10 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc before 15th August, 2021), Respondent Nos.4 and 5 terminated the contract with Respondent No.1 for making and producing the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON - II". Because of this termination, Respondent No.1 has suffered heavy losses.
12. I find both these arguments without any merit. As regards the first argument canvassed by Mr. Pandey that there was no time frame to make the payment, the same is ex-facie incorrect. The payment of Rs.45 Lakhs was to be made by Respondent No.1 under the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021. It is not in dispute that this Agreement has been executed by Respondent No.1. This Agreement clearly stipulates that this payment was to be made by 15th August, 2021. In order to ensure timely payment, Respondent No.1 even gave three cheques dated 14th June, 2021, 5th July, 2021 and 10th August, 2021, respectively (each in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-). These cheques were dishonoured when presented for payment. I, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the first argument canvassed by Mr. Pandey that there was no time frame stipulated for making the payment of Rs.45 Lakhs. Vina Khadpe, PA Page 11 of 21
(12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc
13. Even as far as the second argument is concerned, namely, that the actions of the Petitioner as setout above have caused huge losses to Respondent No.1, I find no merit. This defence is set out in paragraph 9(e) of the affidavit-in-reply. What has been stated by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said paragraph is that since the Petitioner has created so much chaos, the said Respondents have suffered a loss of Rs.15 Crores in the market. Apart from this bald statement, there is absolutely nothing on record to even remotely substantiate the aforesaid claim. In contrast, the liability of Respondent No.1 is undisputed. In fact, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, fairly did not dispute the fact that Rs.35 Lakhs is due and payable by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner. I, therefore, at this stage, have no hesitation in rejecting this argument either.
14. I am in agreement with Mr. Kamat when he contends that there is no dispute regarding the payability of the amount of Rs.35 Lakhs by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner. This being the case, I would be fully justified in directing Respondent No.1 to deposit in this Court the sum of Rs.35 Vina Khadpe, PA Page 12 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc Lakhs pending the disposal of the Arbitration proceedings.
15. As far as the Court's power under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act to make an order of deposit is concerned, the same is now no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Jagdish Ahuja (supra) has clearly laid down that where the Court is of the view that there is practically no defence to the amount payable and where it is in the interest of justice to secure the amount which forms the subject matter of the proposed arbitration, even if no case is strictly made out within the letter of Order 38 Rule 1 or 2, though there are serious allegations concerning such case, it is certainly within the power of the Court to order a suitable interim measure of protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. In other words, in the aforesaid case, the Division Bench has held that where there is no defence to the payability of the amount and where the interest of justice so demands, the Court always has the power under Section 9 to secure the amount by ordering the respondents to deposit the sum in Court. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision reads thus:
"7. In an appropriate case, where the court is of the view that there is practically no defence Vina Khadpe, PA Page 13 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc to the payability of the amount and where it is in the interest of justice to secure the amount, which forms part of the subject matter of the proposed arbitration reference, even if no case strictly within the letter of Order 38 Rule 1 or 2 is made out, though there are serious allegations concerning such case, it is certainly within the power of the court to order a suitable interim measure of protection. As we have noted above, the amount is either to be deposited into the treasury in accordance with the agreement between the parties or if, for any reason, it is not payable to the revenue towards the Respondent's tax liability, as is the case of the Appellants here, it is to be paid to the Respondent itself as part of the price of debentures. In fact, when these two options were posed by the learned Single Judge to the Appellants' counsel, in fairness both conceded that there was no third option."
16. After the aforesaid decision, another learned single Judge of this Court (G. S. Patel J.) had the occasion to consider the law on the subject in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd & anr [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 305]. After considering the entire law, the learned Judge held thus:-
"31. Lest it be argued either here or in any other forum that no case has been made out under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), which seems to me more or less the Vina Khadpe, PA Page 14 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc habitual and automatic chanting of every respondent in a Section 9 Petition, this needs to be stated : that is not the law. The recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court (RD Dhanuka and VG Bhisht JJ) in Essar House Private Limited v. Arcellor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 149] makes it clear that there is no requirement that for such relief an iron-clad case under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") must be made out (or, if not argued, that the Court must hunt for it). The Division Bench reaffirmed the principle that has long been settled, and restated repeatedly, but which seem to be reagitated in the wrong way again and again. The Division Bench said in the clearest terms that the principles of the CPC, including especially Order 38 Rule 5, are guides to a Section 9 Court and the order it makes under that Section. They are not fetters upon the Section 9 Court's discretion. On my reading of the Division Bench order, the position in law is that in such a case an order of deposit not only can be made, but ought to be made. In Valentine Maritime Ltd. v. Kreuz Subsea Pte Ltd. [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 75], the Division Bench of this Court reiterated this position regarding Order 38 Rule 5 and also held that in appropriate case, where the defence is prima facie untenable, the Petitioner has a chance of success, and the defence is moonshine, an order of deposit to secure the claim can and indeed should be made under Section 9. This was also the view of another Division Bench of this Court in Jagdish Ahuja v. Cupino Ltd. [2020 SCC OnLine Bom 849]. All three decisions referenced and explained the previous Division Bench decision in Nimbus Communications Ltd. v. Board of Control for Cricket in India [2013 (1) Mah L.J. 39] and the Supreme Court decision in Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals (P) Ltd.[(2007) 7 SCC 125]. I followed the Division Bench decisions (referencing this law) Vina Khadpe, PA Page 15 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc in Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Aqua Purifier Pvt.
Ltd. and IIFL Finance Ltd. v. Shrenik Dhirajmal Sirqya.
32. Williamson Magor has no defence at all.
Khaitan's defence is untenable and, in view of the settled law on the subject, is unstatable and probably the most complete moonshine. There is a contract with a clear and unequivocal obligation cast on the Respondents. The Petitioner has an excellent chance of success. Accordingly, the Respondents are required to deposit with the Prothonotary and Senior Master an amount of Rs. 14.88 crores by 31st March 2021.1 have rounded off the amount of deposit."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Considering the law laid down by this Court, and being satisfied, at least prima facie, that there is really no dispute with reference to the payability of the amount of Rs.35 Lakhs by Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner, this would be a fit case to direct Respondent No.1 to deposit a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs in this Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the proposed arbitration between the parties.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed:
Vina Khadpe, PA Page 16 of 21
(12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc
(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs within a period of 4 weeks from today.
(b) In addition to the aforesaid order of deposit, Respondent No.1, through their agents, servants, employees or any third person claiming through or under them is/are restrained from encumbering and/or transferring and/or alienating and/or creating any third party rights in respect of the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II". According to Respondent Nos.4 and 5, Respondent Nos.1, 2 and/or 3 have absolutely no rights in the said web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II". It is therefore clarified that whatever rights Respondent No.1 may have in the said web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II", only those rights, if any, shall not be encumbered and/or transferred and/or alienated as directed above. Out of abundant caution, it is made clear that this injunction is granted only qua the rights of Respondent No.1 in the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II", if any.
(c) There is no order passed against Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and by virtue of this order, there is no impediment for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 from producing, releasing, alienating and/or creating Vina Khadpe, PA Page 17 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc third party rights and/or otherwise dealing in the ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights in the web series "RAKTANCHAL SEASON-II".
(d) If the deposit of Rs.35 Lakhs as directed above is not made within a period of 4 weeks from today, the Petitioner shall be entitled to execute this order under Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to ensure that the monies are brought into this Court.
19. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the learned advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, have on instructions, stated that the Arbitral Tribunal can be constituted to decide the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 arising out of the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021. Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the parties, the following order is passed:-
(i) By consent, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, an advocate of this Court, is hereby appointed to act as a Sole Arbitrator to decide upon the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and Respondent Vina Khadpe, PA Page 18 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc No.1 arising out of and/or in connection with and/or in relation to the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021.
(ii) A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the advocates for the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
(iii) The learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward his Statement of Disclosure under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration Act to the advocates for the Petitioner so as to enable them to file the same in the Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain the said Statement on the file of this Petition and a copy of the same shall be furnished by the advocate for the Petitioner to the advocate for Respondent No.1.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the learned Sole Arbitrator on such date and at such place as he nominates to obtain appropriate directions with regard to fixing a schedule for completing the pleadings etc. The Arbitral Tribunal shall give all further directions with reference to the arbitration and also as to how it is to proceed.
(v) Contact and communication particulars shall be provided by both sides to the learned Sole Vina Khadpe, PA Page 19 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc Arbitrator within a period of two weeks from today.
This information shall include a valid and functional email address as well as mobile numbers of the respective advocates.
(vi) The Respondent is at liberty to raise all questions of jurisdiction (with the exception of the existence of the Arbitration Agreement) within the meaning of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open for both sides. Similarly, Respondent No.1 is at liberty to make an application seeking appropriate reliefs in relation to the Agreement dated 11th June, 2021. If such an application is made, the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open in that regard, as well.
(vii) The parties agree that all arbitral costs and the fees of the Arbitrator will be borne by the two sides equally and will be subject to the final Award that may be passed by the Tribunal.
(viii) The parties immediately consent to a further extension of six months to complete the arbitration, should the learned Sole Arbitrator find it necessary.
(ix) The parties have agreed that the venue and seat of Vina Khadpe, PA Page 20 of 21 (12) ARBP(L) 16504.2021.doc the arbitration will be in Mumbai.
20. The above Section 9 Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned shall act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.
B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.
Vina Khadpe, PA Page 21 of 21