HALA KAMEL ZABAL Vs. ARYA TRADING LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the appointment of an Arbitrator, in an International Commercial Arbitration 'ICA' hereinafter, by the High Court, vitiate the resultant arbitral award, if the appointment is in consonance with the arbitration agreement between the parties? This somewhat contentious issue engages the Court in this case, though, in my view, it stands covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narayan Prasad Lohia v Nikunj Kumar Lohia (2002) 3 SCC 572.

(2.) These are cross petitions under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 'the 1996 Act' hereinafter assailing an arbitral award dtd. 14/2/2012 rendered by a learned Sole Arbitrator. The dispute is essentially between the petitioners in OMP (Comm) 262/2016 on the one hand and the respondent in the said OMP on the other. Before me, too, adversarial stances were adopted by the petitioners in OMP (Comm) 262/2016 represented by Ms. Mamta Tiwari, learned Counsel (for Petitioner 1), Mr. Jay Savla, learned Senior Counsel (for Petitioners 2 and 3) and by Ms. Ritika Sinha, learned Counsel (for the respondent). OMP (Comm) 252/2016 has separately been filed by Petitioner 1 in OMP (Comm) 262/2016 and OMP (Comm) 254/2016 has separately been filed by the respondent in OMP (Comm) 262/2016. As all OMPs assail the same award, for ease of reference and keeping in mind the manner in which the parties were represented in Court, Hala Kamel Zabal, V.K. Jhunjhunwala, and Zabatex Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. as Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 in OMP (Comm) 262/2016, shall collectively be referred to as the petitioners and Arya Trading Ltd., the respondent in the said OMP, shall be referred to as the respondent.

(3.) By the impugned Award the petitioners have been directed to pay, to the respondent, a sum of US $ 1,04,190/' along with interest, consequent on which the respondent is required to transfer 6,43,865 equity shares of Petitioner 3, held by it, to Petitioners 1 and 2.