TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Saurav Panda, Ms. Yashna Mehta, Mr. Saifur Rahman Faridi and Ms. Mohana Nijhawan, Advs. for R-2/Future Retail Ltd. JUDGMENT 1. Both these petitions have been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and challenge orders passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, functioning under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and in seisin of the disputes between the parties before me. CM (M) 1140/2022 challenges Procedural Order No.10 dated 11th October 2022, which allows an application by Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC ("Amazon", hereinafter) to supplement the Statement of Claim (SOC) initially filed by it in the arbitral proceedings. CM (M) 1141/2022 assails order dated 28th June 2022, whereby an application, by the petitioners and Respondent 2, seeking termination of the arbitral proceedings under Section 32(2)(c)1 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act") has been rejected. 2. The memo of parties in both these petitions is identical. The petitioners are Future Coupons Pvt. Ltd. (FCL), Future Coupons Resources Pvt. Ltd. (FRL), Akar Estate and Finance Pvt. Ltd. and the Directors of FCL who would, hereinafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber 2020, under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). Though there was no direct contractual relationship between Amazon and FRL, the primary contention of Amazon, in the said arbitral proceedings, were that (i) the FCSHA, FCSSA and FRSHA constituted a single integrated transaction, (ii) Amazon had special protective rights in FRL through FCL and (iii) the prior consent of Amazon had not been obtained before sale or disposal of the retail assets of FRL. Resultantly, Amazon sought, from the learned Arbitral Tribunal, a restraint against FRL from proceeding in terms of the SOA. The prayer clause in the Statement of Claim filed by Amazon before the Learned Arbitral Tribunal reads thus: "For the reasons set out in this Statement of Claim, the Claimant makes the following requests for Relief and asks that the Tribunal issue by way of an Award: (i) A declaration that the board resolution purported to be passed by the FRL Board on 29 August 2020 to approve the Impugned Transaction is in breach of the Agreements; ii) A permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Respondents from transferring, encumbering, divesting, or disposing of, directly or indi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard Interest and Post Award Interest, to be particularised and quantified at a subsequent stage; (xii) Costs of the Arbitration, including the Claimant's legal fees and costs; and (xiii) Such other and further relief(s) as the Tribunal may deem just and proper." 12. Simultaneously, an application for emergency reliefs was also filed in the arbitral proceedings. 13. On 25th October 2020, an interim order came be passed by the Emergency Arbitrator. By the said order, the Emergency Arbitrator restrained FCL and FRL from proceeding with the SOA with Reliance. 14. Therefrom, four sets of proceedings emanated. They may be individually noted thus: CS (Comm) 493/2020 15. FRL filed CS (Comm) 493/2020 before this Court to restrain Amazon from interfering with the SOA between FRL and Reliance. 16. On 21st December 2020, a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta) came to pass an interim order in CS (Comm) 493/2020, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the application for interim relief filed by FRL. OMP (Enf) (Comm) 17/2021 17. Amazon filed OMP (Enf) (Comm) 17/2021, under Section 17(2)2 of the 1996 Act, to enforce the order dated 25th October, 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the order dated 21st October 2021, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 27. This order dated 29th October 2021 was challenged by the FCL before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) 18089/2021 which, consequent to grant of leave, was renumbered CA 864/2022. 28. By the judgment dated 1st February 2022, to which allusion has already been made hereinbefore, the Supreme Court also set aside the order dated 29th October 2021 of the learned Single Judge and remanded IA 14285/2021 to this Court for a decision on merits. 29. As such, IA 14285/2021 as well as IA 14257/2021, filed by FRL and FCL respectively, seeking stay of operation of the order dated 21st October 2021 of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, have to be reheard by this Court. They are also pending. 30. There are, therefore, presently pending, before this Bench (as all matters relating to the proceedings have, consequent to order dated 1st February 2022 passed by the Supreme Court followed by an administrative order dated 3rd February 2022 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, been directed to be listed before me) four proceedings relating to the orders passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, i.e. CS (Comm) 493/2020, OMP (En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that regard. 37. Amazon applied vide Notice dated 23rd September 2019 to the CCI, under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, for approval of the Combination comprising the following three transactions (reproduced verbatim from the order of the CCI): "(i) Transaction I: The issue of Nine Million One Hundred and Eighty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty- Four (9,183,754) Class A voting equity shares of FCPL to Future Coupons Resources Private Limited (FCRPL). Prior to, and immediately post issuance of such equity shares, FCPL will be a wholly owned subsidiary of FCRPL, and (ii) Transaction II: The transfer of Thirteen Million Six Hundred and Sixty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Seven (13,666,287) shares of FRL held by FCRPL (represented Two decimal five Two Percent (2.52%) of the issued, subscribed and paid-up equity share capital of Future Retail Limited (FRL), on a Fully Diluted Basis) to FCPL; and (iii) Transaction III: The acquisition of the Subscription Shares representing Forty Nine percent (49%) of the total issued, subscribed and paid-up equity share capital of FCPL (on a Fully Diluted Basis) by Amazon, by way of a preferential allotment." Amazon, disclosed, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be put in place, by the NLCT, in the said proceedings, on 20th July 2022, between the passing of the orders 28th June 2022 and 11th October 2022, by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, forming subject matter of challenge in CM (M) 1141/2022 and CM (M) 1140/2022 respectively. Application of the petitioners under Section 32(2)(c) of the 1996 Act 43. In the wake of the aforesaid order dated 17th December 2022 of the CCI, the petitioners applied, to the learned Arbitral Tribunal, under Section 32(2)(c) of the 1996 Act, seeking termination of the arbitral proceedings. Inasmuch as this Court is not entering into the merits of the impugned order dated 28th June 2022, whereby the said application was dismissed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to detail the rival contentions of the parties in that regard. Suffice it to state that the petitioners' contention was that, with the approval contained in the order dated 28th November 2019, granted by the CCI to the Combination having been placed in abeyance by the subsequent order dated 17th December 2021 of the CCI, the FCSHA and FCSSA and FRSHA could no longer be acted upon and that, therefore, that no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us: "164. For the reasons given in [125]-[162] above, the Tribunal finds that the continuation of these proceedings has not been rendered unnecessary or impossible under Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, there is no ground for the termination of these proceedings under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act. 165. This Decision does not finally decide and is not dispositive of any issue on the merits of the case. Accordingly, for the avoidance of doubt, this Decision does not constitute an award within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act." Moratorium introduced vide order dated 20th July 2022 of the learned NCLT 49. On 20th July 2022, the learned NCLT put in place a Moratorium under Section 14(1) of the IBC, in the proceedings initiated against FRL under Section 7 thereof, whereby the learned NCLT prohibited "the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority". Addendum dated 11th August 2022, filed by Amazon and the petitioners' response 50. Consequent to the above develop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Expert Report of Mr Howard Rosen.; g) Costs of the Arbitration, including the Claimant's legal fees and wasted costs; and h) Such other and further relief(s) as the Tribunal may deem just and proper." 52. Before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioners contended that the Addendum application of Amazon, to supplement the SOC, was not maintainable. It was contended that, by the said Addendum, Amazon was seeking to introduce an entirely new case, which had nothing to do with the case originally set up in the SOC filed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. This, submitted the petitioners, was impermissible in law, as the learned Arbitral Tribunal was bound by the terms of reference of the arbitration before it. The original reliefs sought by Amazon before the learned Arbitral Tribunal having, even as per the Addendum, become incapable of being granted, the petitioners contended that Amazon could not substitute the reliefs originally sought with entirely new reliefs, predicated on events which took place after the arbitral proceedings had been set in motion, and which were not even foreseen at that point of time. Section 23(3)(c) of the 1996 Act, contended FRL, did not permi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oners and FRL 56. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, having acknowledged, in so many words, that specific performance of the FCSHA, as was sought in the SOC filed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal could no longer be granted, Amazon now sought to urge a completely new case of repudiatory breach and consequent repudiatory damages. They submit that the law did not permit such a wholesale substitution of the case originally urged before the learned Arbitral Tribunal by an entirely new case. Once Amazon admitted that, by reason of supervening developments, its original claim in the arbitral proceedings stood frustrated, learned Senior Counsel would submit that, under Section 32(2)(c) of the 1996 Act, the proceedings had to terminate. The new reliefs that Amazon sought to introduce by way of the addendum, they submit, were predicated on a new cause of action, i.e. the taking over of the retail assets by reliance which, according to Amazon, constituted a repudiatory breach. The arbitral proceedings having been premised on the cause of action on which they were originally instituted, learned Senior Counsel submit that, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., put injunctive directions against the petitioners in place. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the learned Emergency Arbitrator had proceeded on the premise that all transactions were integrated. Once such a concept of "integrated transactions" had been invoked - and that too, at the instance of Amazon - then, when it came to examining the consequences of the moratorium put in place by the learned NCLT, learned Senior Counsel submit that the learned Arbitral Tribunal could not treat the Biyanis and FRL as independent for that purpose. Even otherwise, submit learned Senior Counsel, once the learned Arbitral Tribunal had accepted that the moratorium at least applied in the case of FRL, there could be no question of continuing with the arbitral proceedings, as that would amount to continuing with the proceedings in part, which was not permissible in law. 58. The arbitral proceedings, as they were continuing, submit learned Senior Counsel, were, therefore, a nullity. No other remedy being available with the petitioners to halt the continuance of the arbitral proceedings and keeping in mind the fact that the learned Arbitral Tribunal was continuing with the proceedings without ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd v. S.P.S. Engineering Ltd (2011) 3 SCC 507 and of this Court in U.O.I. v Indian Agro Marketing Cooperative Ltd (2022) 3 HCC 279 (Del), Telecommunications Consultants India ltd v B.R. Sukale Construction 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4863 and Raghuvir Buildcon Pvt Ltd v. Ircon International Ltd 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2491. Submissions of Amazon 62. Responding to the aforesaid submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Subramanium and Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for Amazon, submit that CCI had not, by its order dated 17th December 2021, annulled the agreements between the parties, but had, rather, clarified that it was not concerned with the pending arbitral proceedings. Mr. Subramanium contends that the present proceedings are, in fact, abusive of the process of law. He has drawn my attention, in this context, to the orders dated 4th April 2022 and 6th April 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 1705- 1706 of 2022. 63. The order dated 4th April 2022, passed by the Supreme Court read thus: "1. Heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. Ranjit Kumar and Mr. Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior counsel appearing on behal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d counsel for the parties that since the proceedings are going on before the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, I.A.No.40429/2022 in SLP(C)Nos.1669- 1670/2022 may be transmitted to the learned Single Judge. 4. We, accordingly, transmit I.A.No.40429/2022 in SLP(C)Nos.1669-1670/2022 to the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court to decide the same in accordance with law after hearing learned counsel for the parties. 5. I.A.No.40429/2022 in SLP(C)Nos.1669-1670/2022 stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Vide order dated 04.04.2022, both the parties were directed to file a Joint Memo of Consent Terms by 05.04.2022. 7. In compliance of the said order, Joint Memo of Consent Terms have been filed by the parties. 8. Having heard learned senior counsel for the rival parties and on carefully perusing the Joint Memo of Consent Terms filed by the parties, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order by consent of the parties: (a) Order dated 5th January, 2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.6 of 2022 and CM Application No.569 of 2022 in LPA No.6 of 2022 and LPA No.7/2022 and CM Application No.572/2022 in LPA No.7/2022 is set aside. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicate on it. That jurisdiction, submits learned Senior Counsel, stood vested by Section 23(3) of the 1996 Act. 66. The learned Arbitral Tribunal had, submits learned Senior Counsel, examined all the contentions of the petitioners, as well as the scope and ambit of the expression "unnecessary" and "impossible" as implied in Section 32(2)(c) of the 1996 Act. No scope for interference with such a decision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, they submit, exists. In this context, learned Senior Counsel have invited my attention to the use of the phrase "disputes which have arisen or may arise"17 in Section 7 of the 1996 Act. Adverting to Section 23, learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 23(3) is referable to Section 23(1)18 of the 1996 Act, and it is nobody's case that the dispute does not survive. 67. The breaches alleged by Amazon in its original SOC, as filed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, according to learned Senior Counsel, were sufficient to embrace the repudiatory breach which had taken place consequent to taking over of the retail assets of FRL by Reliance. Even in the Addendum, submits learned Senior Counsel, they had not given up the original SOC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the learned Arbitral Tribunal. In this context, learned Senior Counsel have invited my attention to paras 301 to 307 of the original SOC, which read thus: "301. In addition to specific performance in the form of permanent injunctive relief under Section 38 read with Section 10 of the SRA, the Claimant seeks compensation under Section 21(1) read with Section 21(3) of the SRA on account of the wilful and material breaches of the Agreements committed by the Respondents. 302. The factual matrix, as set out in section VIII above, conclusively establishes that the Respondents have committed wilful breaches of the Agreements. Further, the Respondents have refused to even comply with the directions in the EA Order and continued to pursue the approval for the Impugned Transaction to the grave prejudice of the Claimant. In addition, FRL filed the Anti-Arbitration Suit in breach of the Arbitration Agreement to interdict and interfere with this Arbitration and defeat the rights of the Claimant. This conduct of the Respondents has caused the Claimant to suffer losses including but not limited to wasted costs incurred in resolving the ongoing dispute; wasted costs suffered on account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... maintainable and cannot be allowed. Analysis 72. The present petitions, in my considered opinion, do not lie under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The pronouncements of the Supreme Court in SBP19 and Bhaven Constructions v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. (2022) 1 SCC 75 are clear and unequivocal in that regard. 73. SBP19, rendered by a Bench of seven Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, declared the law thus: "45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he report in Bhadra Products27 demystify the concept thus: "7. As can be seen from Section 2(c) and Section 31(6), except for stating that an arbitral award includes an interim award, the Act is silent and does not define what an interim award is. We are, therefore, left with Section 31(6) which delineates the scope of interim arbitral awards and states that the Arbitral Tribunal may make an interim arbitral award on any matter with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award. 8. The language of Section 31(6) is advisedly wide in nature. A reading of the said sub-section makes it clear that the jurisdiction to make an interim arbitral award is left to the good sense of the Arbitral Tribunal, and that it extends to "any matter" with respect to which it may make a final arbitral award. The expression "matter" is wide in nature, and subsumes issues at which the parties are in dispute. It is clear, therefore, that any point of dispute between the parties which has to be answered by the Arbitral Tribunal can be the subject-matter of an interim arbitral award. However, it is important to add a note of caution. In an appropriate case, the issue of more than one award may be ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC 337, this Court referred to several judgments and held: "11. We have considered the respective arguments/submissions. There cannot be any dispute that the power of the High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by parliamentary legislation - L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261. However, it is one thing to say that in exercise of the power vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order passed by or action taken by the State and/or its agency/instrumentality or any public authority or order passed by a quasi-judicial body/authority, and it is an altogether different thing to say that each and every petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution must be entertained by the High Court as a matter of course ignoring the fact that the aggrieved person has an effective alternative remedy. Rather, it is settled law that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Award is passed and, only thereafter, can vent his grievances, both against the interlocutory as well as against the final Award. 82. Mr Rohatgi sought to contend that, while Section 16(6) of the 1996 Act provided for a remedy, under Section 34, against an order passed under Section 16, there is no remedy available, under the 1996 Act, against an order passed under Section 32(2)(c). Against an order rejecting an application under Section 32(2)(c) of the 1996 Act, therefore, Mr Rohatgi would seek to contend that the party is, in fact, "remediless". 83. For the aforesaid reasons, and with all due respect to Mr Rohatgi, the contention does not appear, to me, to merit acceptance. What the argument overlooks is that the impugned order does not allow an application under Section 32(2). It dismisses it. The order does not, therefore, terminate the arbitral proceedings. Had it allowed the application of the petitioners under Section 32(2), then, perhaps, Amazon might have had a remedy under Article 227, on the ground that the arbitral proceedings had come to an end, and there was no provision in the 1996 Act, whereunder the order could otherwise be challenged. In such a case, Amazon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rited interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 88. In the present case, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has not terminated the arbitral proceedings; rather, it has dismissed the petitioners' application for terminating the proceedings. Vag Educational Services31, therefore, does not help the petitioners. 89. In fact, I had, at the very outset of proceedings, queried of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as to how these petitions would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 90. Extensive arguments were advanced, over several days, which, in due deference to the stature of learned Senior Counsel arguing the matter, I heard. At the end of the day, I am no wiser than I was at the start. Though learned Senior Counsel, at the very outset, sought to submit that, in the peculiar facts of the present case, these petitions ought to be entertained under Article 227, I am, having heard learned Senior Counsel, unable to discern any such peculiarity. 91. The orders under challenge are, plainly, interlocutory orders. The order dated 28th June 2022, forming subject matter of challenge in CM (M) 1141/2022, rejects the petitioners' application u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs dated 4th April 2022 and 6th April 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 1705-1706/2022, as reproduced in para 63 supra, is also, in my view, apt. Consequent to the direction issued on 4th April 2022, a Joint Memo had been filed by the parties before the Supreme Court, one of the terms of consent being that, in the event of dismissal, by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, of the Termination Application filed by the petitioners and FRL, the learned Arbitral Tribunal could continue with the arbitration, conclude hearing and publish the award. 94. The order dated 6th April 2022, passed by the Supreme Court, subsequently, specifically disposed of SLP(C) 1705-1706/2022, in terms of the said Joint Consent terms, which were reproduced in extenso in the said order. Any interdiction with the progress of the arbitral proceedings by this Court would, therefore, be no less than an affront to the order dated 6th April 2022 passed by the Supreme Court, and would operate to dilute its effect. Article 144 of the Constitution of India enjoins on all judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court. Even for that reason, therefore, the challenge of the petitioners, in these petitions, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce in Form I or Form II, as the case may be, which shall be duly signed by the person(s) as specified under Regulation 11 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009. 5(2-A) No combination shall come into effect until two hundred and ten days have passed from the day on which the notice has been given to the Commission under sub-section (2) or the Commission has passed orders under Section 31, whichever is earlier. 67. Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditor. - (1) A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with other financial creditors, or any other person on behalf of the financial creditor, as may be notified25 by the Central Government, may file an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred: Provided that for the financial creditors, referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (6-A) of Section 21, an application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against the corporate debtor shall be filed jointly by not less than one hundred of such creditors in the same class or not less....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or supplement having regard to the delay in making it. 920.5 A party may amend its claim, counterclaim or other submissions unless the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to the delay in making it or prejudice to the other party or any other circumstances. However, a claim or counterclaim may not be amended in such a manner that the amended claim or counterclaim falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. 1034. Application for setting aside arbitral award. - (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if - (a) the party making the application establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that - (i) a party was under some incapacity; or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force; or (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss or damage caused by breach of contract. - When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach. 177. Arbitration agreement. - (1) In this Part, "arbitration agreement" means an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. 1823. Statements of claim and defence. - (1) Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the 24 37. Appealable orders. - ***** (2) An ap....