TELEPATHY INC. Vs. DIRECTI INTEREST SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Arbitration Act), thereby challenged award dated 20 February 2012 passed by Respondent No.4, being an Arbitrator appointed under .In Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP).

(2.) BY the impugned award, the following decision is taken: -

(3.) INDRP rules have been invoked on the complaint filed by Respondent No.5 with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Petitioner never received any communication firstly from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and even from the Arbitrator -Respondent No.4 as contemplated and required under the INDRP rules and also under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Arbitration Act). On 9 January 2012, the complainant -Respondent No.5 sent an email enclosing a domain name complaint to the Petitioner. On 12 January 2012, the Arbitrator was appointed. On 9 February 2012, the Petitioners Attorneys wrote to Respondent No.2 and 3 stating that no official intimation was received of filing of complaint and that future correspondence should be issued to them. On 20 February 2012, the Award allegedly passed, without intimation to the Petitioner. On 22 February 2012, teleconference by attorney of Petitioner with representative of Respondent No.3 when they were for the first time over the phone informed of appointment of arbitrator but no official intimation was given. Email from the Petitioner Attorney to Respondent Nos. 2/3 recording above fact. On 22 February 2012, email from the Petitioner Attorney to Respondent No.4 arbitrator stating no intimation received. On 1 March 2012, further teleconference between the Petitioner Attorney and Respondent Nos. 2/3. Intimation over phone that the award passed. The Petitioner protested and recorded over email to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. On 2 March 2012, the Petitioner emailed response to the complaint as abundant caution. On 27 March 2012, award dated 20 February 2012 published on website of Respondent No.3 though not communicated to the Petitioner officially.