ZEE SPORTS LTD. Vs. NIMBUS MEDIA PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Commercial Appeal, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("said Act"), takes exception to two orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st January, 2017 and 7th February, 2017 respectively. The order dated 31st January, 2017 was passed in Chamber Summons (ST) No. 114 of 2017 in Arbitration Petition No.1698 of 2017. This Chamber Summons sought an amendment to the Arbitration Petition to incorporate the ground of challenge to the award dated 3rd August, 2015 rendered by the Learned Arbitrator mainly on the ground that the award passed by the Arbitrator was a nullity. The gist of this amendment was that since the Respondent being a company incorporated in Singapore, the proceedings were an International Commercial Arbitration [as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act], and therefore, any application under Section 11 of the Act, for appointment of an Arbitrator, was required to be made to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India or His designate. Since the appointment was made by a learned Judge designated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, the order appointing learned Arbitrator was without jurisdiction and consequently all further proceedings including the impugned award was, therefore, a nullity. This Chamber Summons was heard by the learned Single Judge and rejected by the order dated 31st January, 2017. As far as the order dated 7th February, 2017 is concerned, the learned Single Judge heard the Arbitration Petition that was filed under Section 34 of the Act, and rejected the same. It is, these two orders, that are impugned before us in the present appeal.

(2.) Before we deal with the rival contentions raised by the parties, it would be apposite to refer to few facts. We shall not set them out in great detail as the same have been set out by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 7th February, 2017. The brief facts, which are germane for our purpose, are thus:-

(3.) In this factual backdrop, Dr. Saraf, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, basically raised three contentions which are as follows:-