ASHOK KUMAR GOEL Vs. EBIXCASH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned Commercial Arbitration Petition is filed under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act) in which the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Before, however, adverting to the rival contentions it is necessary to set out the following facts to give context to the rival contentions, viz.

(3.) Mr. Jagtiani, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, at the outset, submitted that though the EA Decision was termed an "Emergency Interim Award"the same was in fact only an interim Order and was not a final award as contemplated under Part II of the Act. He then in support of his contention invited my attention to paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 of the SIAC Rules and pointed out that the same made specific and distinct use of the words "award" and "order". He pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC Vs. Future Retail Limited and Ors., (2022) 1 SCC 209 recognising this fact had specifically noted that an Emergency Arbitrator's "award" was in fact an order. It was thus his submission that the EA Decision would not be one which was enforceable under Part II of the Arbitration Act and hence, the Petitioner would always have recourse to Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act by virtue of the proviso to Sec. 2(2) of Arbitration Act.