RAYMOND LIMITED Vs. AKSHAYPAT SINGHANIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These arbitration petitions have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") challenging the common order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal dated 3rd December, 2018 (for short "the impugned order"). The petitioner in both these Petitions was respondent No.1 before the Arbitral Tribunal. Respondent No.1 in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2019 and respondent Nos.1 & 2 in Arbitration Petition No.36 of 2019 were the claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed before the Arbitral Tribunal.

(2.) The Arbitral Tribunal, vide the impugned order, directed respondent No.1 to permit the claimants' Architect and Valuer along with the claimants and/or his/her representative and their Advocate in the presence of respondent No.1's representative and their Advocate, to visit and take inspection of the site in which the suit premises are situated as per the mutual convenience of both parties. The Arbitral Tribunal further directed that such exercise shall be undertaken within ten days from the date of the said order. It is this order that is assailed before me.

(3.) Before dealing with the rival submissions, it would be necessary to set out some bare facts. Considering that the facts in both the petitions are identical, I shall refer to the facts in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2019.