Important Point - Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2 Lacs.

B. P. COLABAWALLA J

1. This Commercial Appeal, filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“said Act”), takes exception to two orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 31st January, 2017 and 7th February, 2017 respectively. The order dated 31st January, 2017 was passed in Chamber Summons (ST) No. 114 of 2017 in Arbitration Petition No.1698 of 2017. This Chamber Summons sought an amendment to the Arbitration Petition to incorporate the ground of challenge to the award dated 3rd August, 2015 rendered by the Learned Arbitrator mainly on the ground that the award passed by the Arbitrator was a nullity. The gist of this amendment was that since the Respondent being a company incorporated in Singapore, the proceedings were an International Commercial Arbitration [as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act], and therefore, any application under Section 11 of the Act, for appointment of an Arbitrator, was required to be made to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India or His designate. Since the appointment was made by a learned Judge designated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, the order appointing learned Arbitrator was without jurisdiction and consequently all further proceedings including the impugned award was, therefore, a nullity. This Chamber Summons was heard by the learned Single Judge and rejected by the order dated 31st January, 2017. As far as the order dated 7th February, 2017 is concerned, the learned Single Judge heard the Arbitration Petition that was filed under Section 34 of the Act, and rejected the same. It is, these two orders, that are impugned before us in the present appeal.

2. Before we deal with the rival contentions raised by the parties, it would be apposite to refer to few facts. We shall not set them out in great detail as the same have been set out by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 7th February, 2017. The brief facts, which are germane for our purpose, are thus:-

(a) The Appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and belongs to “Zee Group” which has various companies under its fold including the Appellant. The Respondent, on the other hand, is a company incorporated in Singapore having its registered office at Singapore. The Respondent in turn belongs to the Nimbus Group of Companies. The parent company of the Nimbus Group is Nimbus Communications Ltd. of which the Respondent is a subsidiary.

(b) On 17th April, 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) was executed between Zee Entertainment Enterprise Limited (“ZEEL”) and Nimbus Communications Limited (“NCL”) for incorporating a Joint Venture Company to launch a sports channel concerning cricket. Pursuant to this MOU, on 19th May, 2004, an agreement was executed between ZEEL and NCL to form a joint venture to launch a television sports channel called “Zee Sports” and to pay for the rights for the cricket played in India. Thereafter, on 17th January, 2005 an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent in respect of the services to be provided with reference to this sports channel. To put it briefly, it was agreed between the parties that the services in respect of launching this sports channel were to be extended and were extended by the Respondent. This agreement laid down various clauses in respect of the fees and out of pocket expenses to be paid and also set out the schedule of payment thereupon. It is this agreement which is the foundation of the dispute, which forms the subject matter of the arbitration.

(c) Thereafter, there were certain e-mails that were exchanged between the parties which confirms that various services were provided by the Respondent. On 22nd May, 2006, the Respondent addressed an e-mail to the Petitioner raising a query regarding the outstanding payment which was responded to by the Petitioner on 24th May, 2006 stating that a payment schedule will be prepared with an intention of squaring off of all the dues and