CIRTUS SOLUTIONS PVT LTDversusDigital Live Services

                                                                          carap250-2026-J.doc


                   AGK
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                      IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

                            COMM ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.250 OF 2026

ATUL               Citrus Solutions Private Limited                  … Applicant
GANESH
KULKARNI                                   Vs.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
                        1. Digital Live Services
Date: 2026.09.17
11:35:16 +0530
                        2. Digital Live Solutions Limited
                        3. Mudit Gupta                               … Respondents

                   Mr. Vaibhav S. Kulkarni for the Applicant.
                   Ms. Deepika Saini for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                                         CORAM                  : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                         RESERVED ON            : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026.

                                         PRONOUNCED ON          : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026

                   JUDGMENT:

                   1.      By the present Application filed under Section 11 of the
                   Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Applicant is seeking
                   appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes and
                   differences which have arisen between the parties out of the
                   Supply Agreement dated 16 July 2024. According to the Applicant,
                   an amount of Rs.49,07,753/- is outstanding and payable, along
                   with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
                   default.

                   2.      The facts and circumstances which have led to filing of the
                   present Application, as stated by the Applicant, are as follows.



                                                      1
                                                      carap250-2026-J.doc


According to the Applicant, the Respondents represented that the
Microsoft License (Digital) Keys supplied to them would be used
strictly for educational purposes and in accordance with the
policies of Microsoft. Relying upon this representation, the parties
entered into a Supply Agreement dated 16 July 2024 ("the
Agreement"). The Agreement sets out the terms relating to the
supply, restrictions regarding the end-use of the products, payment
obligations and liabilities of the parties.

3.    The Applicant has relied upon Clause 7 of the Agreement,
which deals with the terms of payment. The said clause provides as
under:

            "7. Payment Terms the Parties covenant that the
            payment term is 100% advance and shall be made on
            receipt of Proforma Invoice raised upon the DLS by
            CSPL for the supply of Agreed Products on a time-to-
            time basis."
4.    According to the Applicant, the above clause shows that
payment in advance was required before the products could be
supplied. However, relying upon the repeated assurances given by
the Respondents and their representation that the products would
be used for educational purposes, the Applicant, in good faith,
allowed the Microsoft License (Digital) Keys to be activated and
used even though the advance payment was not made within time.
The Applicant states that certain invoices were raised in the name
of Respondent No.2 at the request of Respondent No.3. It is stated
that Respondent No.2 is a sister concern of Respondent No.1 and
that both the said Respondents are owned, managed and operated
by Respondent No.3. The Applicant states that as the outstanding


                                    2
                                                        carap250-2026-J.doc


amount remained unpaid and there was no other option available
to it, the Applicant invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a
Notice dated 16th February 2026 to all the Respondents. According
to the Applicant, despite receipt of the said notice, the
Respondents did not give any reply to the same.

5.       Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits
that, considering its goodwill, position in the market and past
experience     in   the   field,   Respondent   No.1,   through        its
Director/Authorised Officer Mr. Mudit Gupta, who is Respondent
No.3 herein, approached the Applicant and requested supply of
Microsoft Licensed (Digital) Keys to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Respondent No.2 represented to the Applicant that the Microsoft
License (Digital) Keys were required only for implementation of an
education project. The Respondents represented that they had
validly undertaken the said project pursuant to a government
tender/award. Relying upon these representations, the Applicant
states that it believed them to be true, correct and made in good
faith.

6.       The Applicant submits that, during the transaction in
November 2025, Mr. Mudit Gupta, Respondent No.3, assured an
officer of the Applicant over a telephone call that the payment
would be made within three (3) days from the date of supply.
According to the Applicant, the said assurance was given by
Respondent No.3 despite knowing that the promised payment
would not be made. The Applicant states that certain invoices were
raised in the name of Respondent No.2 at the request of
Respondent No.3. According to the Applicant, Respondent No.2 is



                                    3
                                                     carap250-2026-J.doc


a sister concern of Respondent No.1 and both Respondent Nos.1
and 2 are owned, managed and operated by Respondent No.3.

7.    Ms. Saini, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1
to 3, submits that the Supply Agreement dated 16 July 2024,
which contains the arbitration agreement relied upon by the
Applicant, was entered into only between the Applicant and
Respondent No.1, Digital Live Services. Respondent No.2, Digital
Live Solutions Limited, has not signed the said Agreement and is
not a party to the arbitration agreement contained in it. Learned
Advocate submits that, in spite of this position, the Applicant has
made Respondent No.2 a party to the present proceedings.
However, the Applicant has not shown any contractual, factual or
basis for making Respondent No.2 liable or for treating
Respondent No.2 as a party to the arbitration agreement. Learned
Advocate submits that an arbitration agreement is based on the
consent of the parties. It normally binds only those parties who
have agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. A person who
has not signed the agreement can be treated as a party to the
arbitration agreement only in certain recognised circumstances.
For this purpose, there must be proper pleadings and material
showing that the requirements for including such a non-signatory
are satisfied.

8.    It is submitted that, in the present case, the Applicant has
neither pleaded nor shown any such circumstance in respect of
Respondent No.2. The mere fact that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 may
have common management, or that there may be some other
connection between them, cannot make Respondent No.2 a party



                                 4
                                                     carap250-2026-J.doc


to the arbitration agreement. There must be aly valid basis to show
that Respondent No.2 had consented to arbitration.

9.    Learned   Advocate   submits   that   the   impleadment        of
Respondent No.2 in the present proceedings is without any proper
basis and is not supported by the documents. The Applicant has
not placed on record any document showing that Respondent No.2
entered into a novation, assignment, succession agreement or any
independent undertaking by which Respondent No.2 accepted the
obligations of Respondent No.1 or agreed to be bound by the
arbitration agreement. Learned Advocate submits that the
Applicant cannot create an arbitration agreement merely by
making Respondent No.2 a party to the present Petition. Where
there is no arbitration agreement binding Respondent No.2, the
dispute cannot be referred to arbitration against Respondent No.2.
Therefore, to the extent the present Petition seeks any relief
against Respondent No.2, the same is liable to be dismissed.

REASONS AND FINDINGS:

10.   I have considered the Application, the submissions made on
Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing behalf of the Applicant,
the submissions made by Ms. Saini, learned Advocate appearing
for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. At this stage, the Court has to see
whether there is an arbitration agreement and, so far as
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, whether there is sufficient
prima facie material to show that they can be treated as real and
intended parties to the arbitration agreement.

11.   The document before the Court is the Supply Agreement



                                 5
                                                       carap250-2026-J.doc


dated 16 July 2024. In the said Agreement, Citrus Solutions
Private Limited is described as “CSPL / Licensee / Supplier” and
Digital Live Services is described as “DLS”. Digital Live Services is
stated to be a proprietorship firm and its office address is
mentioned in the Agreement. The Agreement uses the words
“CSPL” and “DLS” and says that they are collectively referred to as
"Parties" and individually as a "Party". The recitals show that DLS
approached CSPL and CSPL agreed to supply the Agreed Products
to DLS. Therefore, from the Agreement, it can be seen that the
arrangement was between CSPL and DLS. The other clauses of the
Agreement show that the rights and obligations were placed upon
DLS as the purchaser. Clause 1 provides that DLS shall purchase
the Agreed Products exclusively from CSPL. Clause 2 provides that
DLS shall issue purchase orders and CSPL shall issue the Proforma
Invoice and supply the Agreed Products to DLS. Clause 7 provides
that the payment term is 100% advance and payment has to be
made after receipt of the Proforma Invoice raised upon DLS by
CSPL. Thus, from these clauses, it is seen that the obligations were
between CSPL and DLS.

12.   The Applicant has relied upon the fact that some invoices
were issued in the name of Respondent No.2 at the request of
Respondent No.3. It is the case of the Applicant that Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are sister concerns and are managed by Respondent
No.3. The Applicant states that Respondent No.3 approached the
Applicant, made representations about the purpose for which the
Microsoft License Keys were required and assured the Applicant's
officer that payment would be made within three days from the



                                  6
                                                          carap250-2026-J.doc


date of supply. These facts stated by the Applicant cannot be
ignored only because Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not shown as
signatories   to   the   Agreement.     The    alleged   conduct       and
involvement of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the transaction is
relevant for seeing whether there is some prima facie basis to bring
them within the arbitration agreement. At the same time, merely
because a person has some role or involvement in the dealings
connected with a contract, it cannot be said that such person has
become a party to the contract or to the arbitration agreement. For
this purpose, the terms of the Agreement have to be seen. In the
present Agreement, the expression “DLS” is stated to include its
Affiliates. The Agreement defines “Affiliate” as an entity which
directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common
control with the concerned entity during the period of such
control. It is stated that reference to DLS shall include its affiliates.
This provision is relevant to the issue which arises before the
Court. It shows that when the Agreement was entered into, the
parties had contemplated that the expression “DLS” could include
its affiliates in the manner stated in the Agreement. Therefore, the
submission made on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 that since
Respondent No.2 has not signed the Agreement, the matter ends
there, cannot be accepted. A non-signatory cannot in every case be
excluded only because its signature is not appearing on the
Agreement. The Supreme Court has recognised that in proper
cases a non-signatory can be bound by an arbitration agreement.
The important question is whether the facts and conduct show the
necessary intention and consent to be bound by the arbitration




                                   7
                                                       carap250-2026-J.doc


agreement.

13.   The Supreme Court, in paragraph 84 of Cox & Kings, has
explained the basic position in the following words:

      “84. It is presumed that the formal signatories to an
      arbitration agreement are parties who will be bound by it.
      However, in exceptional cases persons or entities who have
      not signed or formally assented to a written arbitration
      agreement or the underlying contract containing the
      arbitration agreement may be held to be bound by such
      agreement. ... Therefore, the decisive question before the
      Courts or Tribunals is whether a non-signatory consented to
      be bound by the arbitration agreement.”
14.   Thus, what is mainly required to be seen is whether the non-
signatory consented to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
Such consent may be gathered from the terms of the Agreement,
the relationship between the parties and their conduct. Therefore,
the Court has to look at the material placed before it and see
whether there is a prima facie basis to reach such conclusion.

15.   The Agreement contains a specific arbitration clause. Clause
10(a) provides:

      “If any matter, dispute, differences arises between the Parties
      about this Agreement then the Parties shall meet to discuss
      the matter and shall negotiate in good faith to endeavour to
      resolve the matter. Any disputes between the parties, which
      cannot be resolved via negotiations, shall be referred to and
      finally resolved by arbitration as per the provisions of the
      Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.”
16.   Clause 10(b) provides that the seat of arbitration shall be
Mumbai. Clause 10(c) provides for appointment of one Arbitrator



                                 8
                                                     carap250-2026-J.doc


and states that, if either party so wishes, the matter shall be
decided by three Arbitrators, with each party appointing one
Arbitrator and the two Arbitrators appointing the third Arbitrator.
The language of arbitration is stated to be English. The wording of
Clause 10 is important for deciding the present issue. It refers to
disputes “between the Parties”. The word “Parties” has been
defined in the Agreement as CSPL and DLS. Therefore, there is an
arbitration agreement between the Applicant and Respondent
No.1. However, there is no provision in the Agreement which
names Respondent No.2 or Respondent No.3 in his individual
capacity as a contracting party. Respondent No.2 is not shown as a
signatory to the Supply Agreement. The Agreement does not
describe Respondent No.2 as purchaser, co-purchaser, guarantor or
contracting   entity.   Learned   Advocate   appearing     for     the
Respondents has pointed out that the Applicant has not placed on
record any novation, assignment, or independent undertaking by
which Respondent No.2 accepted the obligations of Respondent
No.1 or agreed to be bound by the arbitration clause. To this
extent, the submission made on behalf of Respondent No.2 has
substance. The Supply Agreement does not show that Respondent
No.2 executed the Agreement or accepted the arbitration clause.
The reference to “Affiliates” cannot mean that every company
which is later described as a sister concern of DLS became a party
to the arbitration agreement. There must still be some prima facie
material connecting Respondent No.2 with the relationship created
under the Agreement.

17.   This view is in accordance with paragraph 117 of Cox &



                                  9
                                                        carap250-2026-J.doc


Kings, where the Supreme Court observed:

      “117. … However, we clarify that mere presence of a
      commercial relationship between the signatory and non-
      signatory parties is not sufficient to infer “legal relationship”
      between and among the parties. If this factor is applied
      solely, any related entity or company may be impleaded even
      when it does not have any rights or obligations under the
      underlying contract and did not take part in the performance
      of the contract. The group of companies doctrine cannot be
      applied to abrogate party consent and autonomy.”
18.   Therefore, merely because Respondent Nos.1 and 2 may
have common management or some business relationship, that
cannot be treated as sufficient consent to arbitration. There has to
be some material from which the intention to have a relationship
under the contract can be seen, at least prima facie.

19.   The Applicant has stated that certain invoices were issued in
the name of Respondent No.2 at the request of Respondent No.3. If
the material relating to those invoices showed that Respondent
No.2 placed purchase orders, accepted the terms of the Agreement,
received or used the products, made representations regarding the
Agreement, or otherwise participated in its performance in a
manner showing acceptance of the arrangement, then such facts
could have been relevant. Active participation by a non-signatory
in performance may show that the non-signatory was intended to
be a veritable party.

20.   Paragraph 126 of Cox & Kings explains this position as
follows:




                                  10
                                                      carap250-2026-J.doc


      “126. Evaluating the involvement of the non-signatory party
      in the negotiation, performance, or termination of a contract
      is an important factor for a number of reasons. First, by
      being involved in the performance of a contract, a non-
      signatory may create an appearance that it is a veritable
      party to the contract containing the arbitration agreement;
      second, the conduct of the non-signatory may be in harmony
      with the conduct of the other members of the group, leading
      the other party to legitimately believe that the non-signatory
      was a veritable party to the contract; and third, the other
      party has legitimate reasons to rely on the appearance
      created by the non-signatory party so as to bind it to the
      arbitration agreement.”
21.   In the present case the material before the Court does not
show, even prima facie, to what extent Respondent No.2
participated in the performance of the Supply Agreement. The
Applicant has stated that some invoices were issued in the name of
Respondent No.2. But the Agreement does not show Respondent
No.2 as a contracting party. There is no material shown before the
Court to establish that Respondent No.2 signed the Agreement,
gave any acceptance of its terms or agreed to the arbitration
clause.

22.   The submission that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were under
common management does not establish the required consent.
Common management may show that there is some business
connection between the entities, but it does not mean that
Respondent No.2 accepted the arbitration agreement. The
Supreme Court in paragraph 140 of Cox & Kings has stated:

      “140. An analysis of the cases cited above establishes the
      following propositions of law: first, the typical scenarios



                                 11
                                                      carap250-2026-J.doc


      where a person or entity can claim through or under a party
      are assignment, subrogation, and novation; second, a person
      “claiming through or under” can assert a right in a derivative
      capacity, that is through the party to the arbitration
      agreement, to participate in the agreement; third, the
      persons claiming through or under do not possess an
      independent right to stand as parties to an arbitration
      agreement, but as successors to the signatory parties'
      interest; and fourth, mere or commercial connection is not
      sufficient for a non-signatory to claim through or under a
      signatory party.”
23.   Therefore, so far as Respondent No.2 is concerned, I am not
satisfied that the material available gives sufficient prima facie
basis to hold that Respondent No.2 is a veritable party to the
arbitration agreement.

24.   This does not mean that the Referral Court is required to
conduct a detailed trial regarding every person who is not a
signatory to the Agreement. The Supreme Court has made it clear
that the examination under Section 11 is only a prima facie
examination. Paragraph 169 of Cox & Kings states:

      “169. In case of joinder of non-signatory parties to an
      arbitration agreement, the following two scenarios will
      prominently emerge: first, where a signatory party to an
      arbitration agreement seeks joinder of a non-signatory party
      to the arbitration agreement; and second, where a non-
      signatory party seeks invocation of an arbitration agreement.
      In both the scenarios, the Referral Court will be required to
      prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration
      agreement and whether the non-signatory is a veritable party
      to the arbitration agreement. …”
25.   Therefore, the Court has to make only a limited examination.



                                 12
                                                       carap250-2026-J.doc


But the Court cannot send every person to arbitration without first
seeing whether there is at least a prima facie basis for treating
such person as a party to the arbitration agreement.

26.   The same position is found in paragraph 114 of SBI General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spg., which states:

      “114. The use of the term “examination” under Section 11(6-
      A) as distinguished from the use of the term “rule” under
      Section 16 implies that the scope of enquiry under Section
      11(6-A) is limited to a prima facie scrutiny of the existence
      of the arbitration agreement, and does not include a
      contested or laborious enquiry, which is left for the Arbitral
      Tribunal to “rule” under Section 16. The prima facie view on
      existence of the arbitration agreement taken by the Referral
      Court does not bind either the Arbitral Tribunal or the Court
      enforcing the arbitral award.”
27.   Therefore, I do not accept the submission of the Respondents
in its absolute form that this Court has no role at all in examining
the position of Respondent No.2. The Court has to see whether
there is a prima facie basis for treating Respondent No.2 as a
veritable party. At the same time, the Applicant cannot succeed
only by showing that Respondent No.2 had some commercial
connection with Respondent No.1 or that invoices were issued in
its name. There has to be some material showing consent or
conduct sufficient to bring Respondent No.2 within the arbitration
agreement.

28.   The position of Respondent No.3 requires consideration. The
Applicant states that Respondent No.3 approached the Applicant,
represented the purpose for which the Microsoft License Keys were




                                 13
                                                    carap250-2026-J.doc


required and assured the Applicant's officer that payment would be
made within three days from the date of supply. The Applicant
states that Respondent No.3 requested that certain invoices be
issued in the name of Respondent No.2. Thus, according to the
Applicant, Respondent No.3 had direct involvement in the
transaction. The Agreement records that DLS approached CSPL
pursuant to discussions and representations and warranties of DLS.
Various obligations are imposed upon DLS regarding the use of the
Agreed Products. Annexure-I provides that the products supplied
to DLS should be used in India for Government Educational
Authorities and not for private or commercial purposes unless
prior written approval is granted. The Agreement records
representations by DLS regarding its authority to enter into the
Agreement and states that the Agreement, when executed and
delivered, shall constitute a valid and binding obligation of DLS.
Clause 11 identifies Mr. Mudit Gupta as the point of contact for
Digital Live Services.

29.   These facts are relevant while considering the role of
Respondent No.3. However, there is a difference between a person
acting on behalf of a contracting party and a person who becomes
a party to the contract. A person may negotiate, communicate or
give instructions on behalf of a firm or company without accepting
all the obligations of that company. The Court has to see whether
Respondent No.3 acted only as the representative of DLS or
whether there is prima facie material showing his consent to the
arbitration agreement.




                                14
                                                     carap250-2026-J.doc


30.   In the present Agreement, Mr. Mudit Gupta is not described
in his individual capacity as one of the “Parties”. The named
contracting party is Digital Live Services. Clause 10 refers to
disputes “between the Parties”. There is no provision in the
Agreement stating that Mr. Mudit Gupta undertook the liabilities of
DLS or agreed to submit his individual disputes to arbitration. The
fact that Mr. Mudit Gupta negotiated the transaction or allegedly
gave an assurance regarding payment cannot establish that he
consented to the arbitration agreement. His conduct may have
relevance while considering the Applicant's underlying claim
against DLS. But that issue is different from the question whether
he became a party to the arbitration agreement. The Agreement
describes Digital Live Services as a proprietorship firm and
identifies Mr. Mudit Gupta as the person to whom notices were to
be addressed. This circumstance cannot be completely ignored.
However, it is not necessary at this stage to finally decide all
questions concerning the constitution of the proprietorship firm or
the exact capacity in which Mr. Mudit Gupta acted. For the present
purpose, the question is whether he can be treated as a individual
party to the arbitration agreement.

31.   Applying the above principles, I find that the material does
not show any consent by Respondent No.3 to the arbitration
agreement. His alleged participation in the transaction may be
relevant for deciding the substantive claim of the Applicant, but
such participation does not make him a party to the arbitration
agreement. There has to be something more to show that he
accepted the obligation to arbitrate. The distinction becomes



                                15
                                                           carap250-2026-J.doc


clearer from the Agreement. Respondent No.1 is the entity named
in the Supply Agreement. The Agreed Products were to be supplied
to DLS. The payment obligation under Clause 7 is upon DLS. The
representations and warranties in the Agreement are those of DLS.
The arbitration clause operates between the “Parties”, namely
CSPL and DLS. The arbitration agreement between the Applicant
and Respondent No.1 is established. It is in writing and the
contracting parties are identified. Clause 10 provides for
arbitration of disputes which cannot be resolved through
negotiations. The seat of arbitration is Mumbai. Therefore, there is
no reason at this stage to refuse reference of the disputes between
the Applicant and Respondent No.1 to arbitration.

32.   The    Applicant    claims    an     outstanding      amount         of
Rs.49,07,753/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum. Whether this amount is due, whether the goods or
Microsoft License Keys were supplied as claimed, whether there
was any default, what amount is payable and whether the
Applicant is entitled to interest at the claimed rate are all matters
concerning the merits of the dispute. Clause 7 provides for 100%
advance payment. These questions can be considered by the
Arbitral Tribunal in the arbitration between the Applicant and
Respondent    No.1.      The   Applicant    has   relied      upon       the
representations concerning the educational use of the Microsoft
License Keys and the alleged assurance regarding payment. The
Agreement contains provisions concerning use of the Agreed
Products, activation, reporting, specifications and consequences of
breach. Whether the Applicant is able to prove the allegations



                                   16
                                                      carap250-2026-J.doc


made by it and what relief, if any, is to be granted on such facts
will be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal.

33.   The prima facie view taken by this Court regarding the non-
signatories does not take away the power of the Arbitral Tribunal
to consider its own jurisdiction in accordance with Section 16,
where such question is otherwise before it. The Supreme Court has
recognised that the prima facie view of the Referral Court does not
finally bind the Arbitral Tribunal. But this principle does not mean
that a person against whom there is no prima facie basis for being
treated as a party to the arbitration agreement must be compelled
to participate in the arbitration.

34.   On considering the Agreement as a whole, its definitions, the
arbitration clause, the payment clause, the role attributed to
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the Applicant and the objections raised
by the Respondents, I find that the Applicant has established the
arbitration agreement between and Respondent No.1. The
Applicant has not established the necessary prima facie basis for
joining Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as parties to that arbitration
agreement.

35.   Accordingly, the Application deserves to be allowed to the
extent of the disputes between the Applicant and Respondent
No.1. The disputes arising out of the Supply Agreement dated 16
July 2024 between the Applicant and Respondent No.1 shall
proceed to arbitration in accordance with Clause 10 of the
Agreement.

36.   In the aforesaid circumstances, the present Application under



                                     17
                                                      carap250-2026-J.doc


Section 11 of the Act, is deserved to be disposed of in terms of the
following order:

     A)    Mr Jash Gandhi, is hereby appointed as the Sole
     Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences
     arising out of the Supply Agreement dated 16 July 2024
     between the Applicant and Respondent No.1 shall proceed to
     arbitration in accordance with Clause 10 of the Agreement;

     Office Address:- 3rd Office, Brady House Building, 2nd Floor,
     Kala Ghoda, Mumbai – 400 001

     Email: [email protected]

     B)    A copy of this Order will be communicated to the
     Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Applicant
     within a period of one week from today. The Applicant shall
     provide the contact and communication particulars of the
     parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of this
     Order;

     C)    The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the
     statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read
     with Section 12(1) of the Act to the Advocates for the
     Applicant so as to enable them to file the same in the
     Registry of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall retain
     the said Statement on the file of this Applicant and a copy of
     the same shall be furnished by the Advocates for the
     Applicant to the Advocates for the Respondent;

     D)    The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the




                                 18
                                                       carap250-2026-J.doc


      statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read
      with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period
      of two weeks from receipt of a copy of this Order;

      E)    The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole
      Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated, to
      obtain appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the
      arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings,
      examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At
      such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional
      email address along with mobile and landline numbers of the
      respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral Tribunal.
      Communications to such email addresses shall constitute
      valid service of correspondence in connection with the
      arbitration;

      F)    All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall
      be borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall
      be subject to any final Award that may be passed by the
      Tribunal in relation to costs.

37.   All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated
before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.

38.   All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall
be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this
Court’s website.

                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  19