MANIPAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. MAPPLE EDUSOFT PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Application is under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. It arises in most unfortunate circumstances. The Applicant is the claimant in arbitration. The Respondent is a private limited company that seems to have run into serious financial difculties. It is represented in Court today by Ms Ranni Dahiya. She used to be a director of the Respondent at the relevant time. Her husband, Anurag Simsimwar, is a director. He is present in Court. He expressly accepts that Ms Dahiya is authorised to represent the company both before me and later in arbitration.

(2.) The disputes between the parties arise apparently under an Agreement dated 6th January 2016. That Agreement had an Arbitration clause and it provided for arbitration in Mumbai. The Respondent is a Jaipur-based company.

(3.) On 23rd December 2016, this Court constituted an arbitral tribunal. The sole Arbitrator entered upon the reference to her arbitration shortly thereafter. The matter seems to have proceeded with rival pleadings being filed including a reply to the statement of claim, a counter claim and a reply to the counter claim. Several hearings were held -- I am told over 25 or so. An initial extension was agreed by consent, two time extensions under Section 29-A The matter continued before the sole Arbitrator initially appointed.