PCLIT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD Vs. MTECH SOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules against the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No. 647/2013 by which the objections filed by the appellant to the award dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Sole Arbitrator stand rejected.

(2.) Before the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to set out the basic facts which led to the dispute between the parties.

(3.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant/ PCLIT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., who is in the business of leasing out facilities and services to call centre industry, entered into a Campaign Services Agreement (hereinafter referred as 'CSA) dated 01.11.2006 with the respondent/MTECH SOLUTIONS, a proprietorship concern operating as a BPO(Call Centre) and conducting IT enabled services As per the agreement, the respondent took on lease the entire floor of the premises of the appellant situated at Plot No.21, Electronic City, Sector-18, Gurgaon with 166 calling seats, offices and training room. As per the appellant, the respondent was required to pay $31800 as security deposit under CSA, i.e. $24000 for seats and $7800 for PSTN(telephone calling minutes), but paid the respondent only $25550 as security deposit and requested the appellant to adjust the security deposit against the previous CSA dated 06.09.2006. Appellant started providing the services as per CSA to the respondent from 01.11.2006 but the agreement was terminated on 21.11.2006 when the respondent approached the appellant requesting to terminate the same as they desired to enter into a similar agreement with another entity. Subsequently on 21.11.2006 after termination of the said agreement dated 01.11.2006 an arrangement in the form of "second memorandum of understanding" was reached between the parties as per which the respondent was to have a separate agreement with the another entity (i.e.MS Technocall) in reference to the transfer of security deposit. The respondent, thereafter, approached the appellant to refund the security deposit amounting to $31800, which the appellant denied and disputes arose between the parties which were referred to a sole Arbitrator, the Award dated 22.08.2012 was passed in favour of the respondent whereby the appellant was directed to refund the security amount along with the interest @ 12% including the cost of litigation, to the respondent. The appellant approached the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act challenging the said award but the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.