TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the Arbitral Tribunal rejecting such a 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 Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal's order notes that the case was reluctantly 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y recapitulate that the Section 11 application was allowed 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent/claimant has already exceeded 12 hours, but the respondent/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 ....