Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

 20. In section 37 of the principal Act, in sub-section (1), for clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:—
 “(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8;
 (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9;
 (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34.”.

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Amendment of Section 56 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

 23. In section 56 of the principal Act, the Explanation shall be renumbered as Explanation 1 thereof, and after the Explanation 1 as so renumbered, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:—

 ‘Explanation 2.——In this section and in the sections following in this Chapter, “Court” means the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitral award if the same had been the subject matter of a suit on its original civil jurisdiction and in other cases, in the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to such High Court.’

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Amendment of Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

21. In section 47 of the principal Act, for the Explanation, the following Explanation shall be substituted, namely:—
 ‘Explanation.——In this section and in the sections following in this Chapter, “Court” means the High Court having original jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitral award if the same had been the subject matter of a suit on its original civil» jurisdiction and in other cases, in the High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to such High Court.

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Amendment of section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

22. In section 48 of the principal Act, for the Explanation to sub-section (2), the following Explanations shall be substituted, namely—
«- “Explanation l.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,——
' (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
 (ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. Explanation 2.—-For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute”.

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Amendment of Section 57 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

24. In section 57 of the principal Act, in sub—section (1), for the Explanation, the following Explanations shall be substituted, namely:- “Explanation 1.- For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in conflict with the public policy of India, only if,—
 (i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with \the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. ' Explanation 2.- For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.

-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

THE FlFTH SCHEDULE

 [See section 12 (I)(b)]

The following grounds give rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence or impartiality of arbitrators :
 Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, adviser or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.
 2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties.
 4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties.
 5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration. .
 6. The arbitrator’s law firm had a previous but terminated involvement in the case without the arbitrator being involved himself or herself.
 7. The arbitrator’s law firm currently has a significant commercial relationship with one Of the parties or an affiliate ’ of one of the parties.
 8. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party even though neither the arbitrator nor his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.
9. The arbitrator has a close family relationship with one of the parties and in the case of companies with the persons in the management and controlling the company.
 10. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the par-ties or an affiliate of one of the parties. ll.The arbitrator is a legal representative of an entity that is a party in the arbitration.
12. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence in one of the parties.
13. The arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or the outcome of the case. 14. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party, and the arbitrator or his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.

 Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute 

15. The arbitrator has given legal advice or provided an expert opinion on the dispute to a party or an affiliate of one of the parties.
 16. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case.

 Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute 

' 17. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is privately held.
18. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in the outcome of the dispute.
19. The arbitrator or a close family member of the arbitrator has a close relationship with a third party who may be liable to recourse on the part of the unsuccessful party in the dispute.

• The Fifth  Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

-Amendment of section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015

-Amendment of Section 56  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 47  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of section 48  of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-Amendment of Section 57   of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015
-THE FlFTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator :- Relationship between an arbitrator and another arbitrator or counsel.

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator

Relationship between an arbitrator and another arbitrator or counsel.

 25. The arbitrator and another arbitrator are lawyers in the same law firm.
 26. The arbitrator was within the past three years a partner of, or otherwise affiliated with, another arbitrator or any of the counsel in the same arbitration.
27. A lawyer in the arbitrator’s law firm is an arbitrator in another dispute involving the same party or parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.
 28. A close family member of the arbitrator is a partner or employee of the law firm representing one of the parties, but is not assisting with the dispute.
29. The arbitrator has within the past three years received more than three appointments by the same counsel or the same law firm.

• The Fifth Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

THE SIXTH SCHEDULE of the Amended act of Arbitration and conciliation act 1996

THE SIXTH SCHEDULE
 [See section 12 (1)(b)]

 ' NAME: CONTACT DETAILS:

 PRIOR EXPERIENCE (INCLUDING EXPERIENCE WITH ARBITRATIONS):

 NUMBER OF ON-GOING ARBITRATIONS:

 CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSING ANY PAST OR PRESENT RELATIONSHIP WITH OR INTEREST IN ANY OF THE PARTIES OR IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER IN DISPUTE, WHETHER FINANCIAL, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER KIND, WHICH IS LIKELY TO GIVE RISE TO JUSTIFIABLE DOUBTS AS TO YOUR INDEPENDENCE OR IMPARTIALITY (LIST OUT):

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO DEVOTE SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ARBITRATION AND IN PARTICULAR YOUR ABILITY TO FINISH THE ENTIRE ARBITRATION WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AND RENDER AN AWARD WITHIN THREE MONTHS (LIST OUT):

• The Fifth  Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator:- Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator:-

  Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

17. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is privately held.

 18. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in the outcome of the dispute.

 19. The arbitrator or a close family member of the arbitrator has a close relationship with a third party who may be liable to ' recourse on the part of the unsuccessful party in the dispute.

 Explanation l.~ The term, “close family member” refers to a spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner.

Explanation 2.— The term “affiliate” encompasses all companies in one group of companies including the parent company. Explanation 3.-— For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that it may be the practice in certain specific kinds of arbitration, such as maritime or commodities arbitration, to   draw arbitrators from a small, specialised pool. If in such fields it is the custom and practice for parties frequentlyI to appoint the same arbitrator in different cases, this 'is a relevant fact to be taken into aeoount while applying the rules set out above.’.

• The Fifth Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator:-Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator:-

Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters  

30. The arbitrator’s law firm is currently acting adverse to one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.

31. The arbitrator had been associated within the past three years with a party or an affiliate of one of the parties in a ’ professional capacity, such as a former employee or partner.
 Other circumstances

 32. The arbitrator holds shares, either directly or indirectly, which by reason of number or de-nomination constitute a material holding in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties that is publicly listed.

33. The arbitrator holds a position in an arbitration institution with appointing authority over the dispute.

34. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties, where the affiliate is not directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration.

 Explanation 1.—— The term “close family member” refers to a spouse, sibling, child, parent or life partner.

 Explanation 2.~—The term “affiliate” encompasses all companies in one group of companies including the parent company.
 Explanation 3.—-— For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that it may be the practice in certain specific kinds of arbitration, such as maritime or commodities arbitration, to draw arbitrators from a small, specialised pool. If in such fields it is the custom and practice for parties frequently to appoint the same arbitrator in different cases, this is a relevant fact to be taken into account while applying the rules set out above. 

• The Fifth Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator: Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator:

THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE

 [See Section 12(5)]

 Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

 1. The arbitrator is an employee, consultant, advisor or has any other past or present business relationship with a party.

 2. The arbitrator currently represents or advises one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties

. 3. The arbitrator currently represents the lawyer or law firm acting as counsel for one of the parties.

 4. The arbitrator is a lawyer in the same law firm which is representing one of the parties

. 5. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence, in an affiliate of one of the parties if the affiliate is directly involved in the matters in dispute in the arbitration.

 6. The arbitrator’s law firm had a previous but terminated involvement in the case without the arbitrator being involved himself or herself.

 7. The arbitrator’s law firm currently has a significant commercial relationship with one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.

 8. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party even though neither the arbitrator nor his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.

 9. The arbitrator has a close family relationship with one of the parties and in the case of companies with the persons in the management and controlling the company.

 10. A close family member of the arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.

 1 l.The arbitrator is a legal representative of an entity that is a party in the arbitration.

 12. The arbitrator is a manager, director or part of the management, or has a similar controlling influence in one of the parties.

 13. The arbitrator has a significant financial interest in one of the parties or the outcome of the case.

 14. The arbitrator regularly advises the appointing party or an affiliate of the appointing party, and the arbitrator or his or her firm derives a significant financial income therefrom.

• The Seventh Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator:-

Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute

 15. The arbitrator has given legal advice or provided an expert opinion on the dispute to a party or an afliliate of one of the parties.

 16. The arbitrator has previous involvement in the case.

• The Fifth Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator:-Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case

Justifiable Ground for the Independence or impartiality  of the Arbitrator:-

 Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

 20. The arbitrator has within the past three years served as counsel for one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties or has previously advised or been consulted by the party or an affiliate of the party making the appointment in an unrelated matter, but the arbitrator and the party or the affiliate of the party have no ongoing relationship.

21. The arbitrator has within the past three years‘served as counsel against one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties in an unrelated matter.

 22. The arbitrator has within the past three years been appointed as arbitrator on two or more occasions by one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties.

 23. The arbitrator’s law firm has within the past three years acted for one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties in an unrelated matter without the involvement of the arbitrator.

 24. The arbitrator currently serves, or has served within the past three years, as arbitrator in an-other arbitration on a related issue involving one of the parties or an affiliate of one of the parties. 

• The Seventh Schedule:-Arbitration Act 2015, Justifiable ground for the independence or impartiality of the Arbitrator
•   Arbitrator’s direct or indirect interest in the dispute

• Relationship between arbitrator and party and others involved in the arbitration Matters.

• Arbitrator’s relationship with the parties or counsel

•  Relationship of the arbitrator to the dispute
•  Previous services for one of the parties or other involvement in the case of arbitration Matter

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR FIXING AN ACTUAL DATE OF HEARING IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER

IN THE --------------- COURT OF DELHI AT ……….

I.A NO.       OF 2000

IN

------------. _______ OF 2000

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ABC.                                                                    …      Applicant

VERSUS

Xyz                                                                       …      Respondent

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151

OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR FIXING AN ACTUAL

DATE OF HEARING IN THE CAPTIONED MATTER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying Petition under Section --

of t-------------------- Act, 19-- challenging the Arbitral Award

dated --------and also the order dated ------------------- passed by the

Arbitral Tribunal on the application filed by the Petitioner under Section

---) of the------- Act, 19-- (said act). The

contents of the accompanying Petition be read as part and parcel of the

present application also, which are not repeated herein for the sake of

brevity.

2.  Pursuant to the completion of pleadings by the parties, in terms of the

directions given by the Court to the parties, both the parties have filed

their detailed Written Submissions before the Court pertaining to the

'

disputes involved therein. Thereafter in terms of the order dated

------------, the counsels appearing for the parties to file an agreed set

of documents by way of a convenience file, which was also filed by the

parties .

3. Thereafter the matter was fixed on various dates for final arguments and

disposal but the same could not be heard by the Court.

4. The matter was lastly fixed on ----------- for arguments and disposal,

on which date the matter was directed to be listed in the category of

"Finals" by the Court.

5. In terms of the "Finals" List, the captioned matter is not being reflected

and therefore the present application is being filed for listing the matter

on an actual date of hearing for final arguments and disposal. Since the

Written Submissions as well as a Joint Convenience file has already been

placed on record by both the parties, the disposal of the captioned

matter could be expedited.

6. The present application is bonafide and in the interest of justice and

equity.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to:-

a) fix an actual date of hearing in the captioned matter.

b) pass any other order(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT

THROUGH                                                 

Advocate

Place

DATE:

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR SEEKING DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT ON ALTERNATE ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES

IN THE --------------- COURT OF DELHI AT ……….

I.A NO.       OF 2000

IN

------------. _______ OF 2000

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ABC.                                                                    …      Applicant

VERSUS

Xyz                                                                       …      Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR SEEKING DIRECTION AND PERMISSION TO SERVE THE RESPONDENT ON

ALTERNATE ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to issue fresh notice to Respondent by all modes vide order dated  ……………… passed in the present matter.

2 That the Petitioner has come to know that the Respondent Company has the following alternative addresses from where it functions/operates:-

…………………..

…………….

3. That it is imperative that for effective service of Notices of present Petition upon Respondent it is expedient that the Petitioner be permitted to serve the Respondents at new

given addresses as above stated in addition to the one given in the memo of parties.

4. That the present application is being made bonafide and in interest of justice and therefore is liable to be allowed.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon 'ble Court may graciously be pleased to :-

i) Permit the Petitioner to serve notice freshly on correct additional addresses of Respondent as given in Para 1 herein above.

ii) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of Justice

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT

THROUGH                                                 

Advocate

NEW DELHI

DATE:

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 CPC READ WITH ORDER VI RULE 17 FOR CORRECTION AND ADDITION IN THE SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND ACT, 1996.

IN THE --------------- COURT OF DELHI AT ……….

I.A NO.       OF 2015

IN

------------. _______ OF 2015

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ABC.                                                                    …      Applicant

VERSUS

Xyz                                                                       …      Respondent

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 151 CPC READ WITH ORDER VI RULE 17 FOR CORRECTION AND ADDITION IN THE SECTION 34 OF ARBITRATION AND ACT, 1996.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner has filed above mentioned petition which is pending before this Hon'ble Court.

2. That due to inadvertence certain corrections and additions in the petition has been left, therefore the petitioner seeks permission to make necessary corrections and additions in the petition stated as under:

……….

3. That the prayer clause (a) may kindly allowed to be corrected as under:…….

4. That 'it is in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to make aforesaid corrections and additions.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the petitioner to make aforesaid corrections and additions in the petition.

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT

THROUGH                                                 

Advocate

NEW DELHI

DATE:

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996

IN THE --------------- COURT OF --------- AT …………..

I.A NO.       OF 20--

IN

------------. _______ OF 20--

IN THE MATTER OF:-

ABC.                                                                    …      Applicant

VERSUS

Xyz                                                                       …      Respondent

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT  TO THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION:

1. The present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in its present

form and is liable to be dismissed at the outset. The petitioner has not

approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has suppressed the

material facts as such the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground

alone.

. 2. That the petitioner has presented the instant case based upon false, frivolous

and fabricated documents before this Hon'ble Court and hence the petitioner

is liable for perjury.

3. That the petitioner in the present case is liable for suggestion-veri and

suppresio-falsi which is evident from the contents of the present petition

filed by it before this Hon'ble Court.

4. That there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and answering

respondent and therefore there is no question for the present petition being

maintainable in the eyes of law.

5. It is a settled law that for the purposes of seeking any relief under Section 9

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there must be a valid and

subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties, however, in the present

case there is no valid and subsisting arbitration agreement between the

petitioner and the answering respondent and infact the petitioner and the

answering respondent have not entered into any Contract with each other for

any work whatsoever. A bare perusal of the petition would clearly

demonstrate that the petitioner has no privity of contract with the answering

respondent and the petitioner has even submitted that the petitioner has

never seen any documents of the contract of the answering respondent. The

petitioner itself mentions in the present petition that the respondent no. 1 is

the contractor of the petitioner and thus the answering respondent has

nothing to do with the petitioner.

6. Be that as it may, it is also pertinent to mention that the maintainability of

the present petition is challenged on the ground that the petitioner is no more

working at the site and has been evicted from the site by its contractor for

reasons of non-performance only and another third party has now been

awarded with a Contract in place of the petitioner as informed to the

answering respondent by the respondent no. 3 herein.

7. The law is clear as to the position that relief under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be claimed only when the basic requirement of contractual relationship between the parties has been duly

satisfied. …….

9. ……

11.Therefore in so far as the judicial position is concerned it is crystal clear that

the present petition is not maintainable against the answering respondent on

the ground that there is no arbitration agreement between the petitioner and

the answering respondent.

12.That the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be

claimed against the answering respondent due to lack of privity of the

contract and therefore the whole purpose of the present petition becomes

absolutely infructuous.

13.In view of the above mentioned legal position, the answering respondent is

neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present petition and therefore

the answering respondent ought to be deleted from being a party to the

instant proceedings.

14.By virtue of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC the answering

respondent ought to be deleted from being a party to the proceedings on the

ground that there is no agreement/ contract and also there is no arbitration

agreement of the petitioner with that of the answering respondent and hence the present petition cannot be held to be maintainable against the answering

respondent.

15.Apart from the above mentioned grounds, the present petition must also be

dismissed since the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with

clean hands. ……..

17.That the present petition is also not maintainable on the ground that the

petitioner is trying to misled this Hon'ble court and induced the Hon'ble

Court to believe that there exists a contractual nexus between the petitioner

and the answering respondent and only on the basis of such a false

inducement and misleading, this Hon'ble court has issued notice upon the

answering respondent by attempting to create a contractual relationship

between the answering respondent and the petitioner which does not exist.

Without prejudice to this, it is further submitted that an arbitration

agreement shall have to be in writing and cannot be inferred.

18.In view of the above mentioned legal preliminary objections, the present

petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without delving into

the merits of the case purely on the basis of maintainability,

 PARA-WISE REPLY

1. The contents of the para under reference are: not being replied for want of

knowledge.

2. The contents of the para under reference are: not being replied herein as it

pertains to the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner and the answering

respondent has no knowledge of any communication between them.

3. The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. It is denied that the petitioner was ever to be directly connected with

the respondent no…………………….

.

4. The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. It is denied that there was any efficiency or delay on the part of the

answering respondent for either any drawings or any layout plan works etc.

and irrespective of any fact it is stated that the petitioner has no nexus or

connection with that of the answering respondent and therefore it is stated that

no drawings or layouts were to be provided to the petitioner by the

respondent.

5. The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. As stated earlier there is no privity of contract or connection of the

petitioner with the answering respondent and therefore it is denied that the

answering respondent was to ever replied to any alleged hindrances faced by

the petitioner. Since the answering respondent was only concerned with the

respondent no. , hence any communication made by the said respondent

would only be considered.

6. The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. At the risk of repetition it is reiterated that the answering respondent

has no contract with that of the petitioner and therefore there arises no

question for the answering respondent to consider any communication or

representation made by the petitioner and thus the averments made in the para

under reference are totally denied being irrelevant. Be that as it may, it is also

denied that there were any hindrances for the work of the answering

respondent at any time during the execution of the captioned contract.

7. The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. Since the answering respondent was not having any connection with

the. petitioner therefore the answering respondent cannot state, admit or deny…………

23.The contents of the para under reference are not replied being unconcerned

with the answering respondent and for want of knowledge. It is most

respectfully submitted that the present petition seems to be a collusive action

of the petitioner and the respondent no………

.

24.The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. It is denied that the petitioner has a prima facie good case and on the

contrary from a bare perusal of the present petition it is evident that firstly the present petition is not maintainable in its present form for the reasons

stated herein above and also the fact that the. petition is based on false and

frivolous averments which are nothing but untrue statements made to mislead

this Hon'ble Court.

25.The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. It is denied that balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner

on the contrary from a bare perusal of,the present petition it is evident that

firstly the present petition is not maintainable in its present form for the

reasons stated hereinabove and also the fact that the petition is based on false

and frivolous averments which are nothing but untrue statements made to

mislead this Hon'ble Court.

26.The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied.

27.The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied. In view of the preliminary objections as well as the preliminary

submissions made by the answering respondent herein it is submitted that no

cause of action has arisen in the present matter and the present matter is

nothing but a false and frivolous petition.

28.The contents of the para under reference need no reply.

29.The contents of the para under reference need no reply.

30.The contents of the para under reference are wrong and devoid of merit hence

denied.The averments made in the para under reference evidently show that

the intention of the present petition was only aimed towards the respondent

no. 1 and not the other respondents. Since there was no agreement between

the petitioner and the answering respondent hence there is no document to

decide jurisdiction amongst the party. In View of the above mentioned preliminary objections and preliminary

submissions it is vehemently clear that at the first and foremost the present

petition is not maintainable against the answering respondent and

thereafter the averments made in the present petition are evidently untrue and

false and therefore the prayer made by the petitioner shall be dismissed.

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT

THROUGH                                                 

Advocate

NEW DELHI

DATE: