TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prayer. 3. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are as follows. The appellant/respondent, a startup company providing educational software and related services, and the respondent/claimant, a provider of capital advisory services to various companies, entered into a Client Service Agreement. Under this agreement, the respondent/claimant was to provide advisory services to the appellant/respondent. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to non-payment of fee for the services rendered by respondent/claimant to appellant/respondent company, prompting respondent/claimant to invoke dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration. 4. Following the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, proceedings commenced, and parties sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly adjourned to 06.04.2024 for conclusion of the cross. 7. It is alleged that, due to various applications for discoveries and interrogatories filed by the respondent/claimant, the crossexamination of RW-1 was cancelled on 06.04.2024. The proceedings kept on being delayed and the parties consensually extended the mandate of the Tribunal by 6 months which was due to expire on 16.05.2024 as per Section 29A of the Act. Ultimately, the proceedings resumed with cross-examination of RW-1 on 01.10.2024, where a total 28 questions were put to him. The Tribunal in the record of proceedings noted that the cross-examination of RW-1 stands concluded and accordingly, the witness was discharged. 8. After two days, i.e. on 03.10.2024, respondent/claiman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the High Court on 08.05.2023 leading to the constitution of the Tribunal which held the first hearing on 19.05.2023. It is evident that the cross-examination of the appellant/respondent's witness RW-1 commenced on 09.12.2023 when the respondent/claimant's counsel asked 9 questions on that very day and the cross was adjourned for 10.02.2024. On 10.02.2024, the record shows that the crossexamination commenced at 11 am and concluded by 7 pm during which time the respondent/claimant's counsel asked as many as 104 questions to the said witness. After a long lapse of almost 8 months, during which period the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was exhausted, the cross-examination commenced on 01.10.2024. Even on that day the cross-examination was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent/claimant does not seem to be satisfied with it. 14. In any event of the matter when the Arbitral Tribunal by its order dated 09.10.2024 held - 'that far and no further', to the respondent/claimant's endeavour to cross-examine RW-1, the High Court should have restrained itself from interfering. In order to justify its interference and extension of time, the High Court has referred to and relied on a judgment of the same Court Kelvin.Air.Conditioning.and.Ventilation.System.Pvt¡.Ltd¡.v. Triumph.Reality.Pvt¡.Ltd¡*.2024 SCC Online Del 7137. Certain conditions for exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 are mentioned in the judgment. Conditions (v) and (vi) of the said judgment could have provided sufficient gu....