JUDGMENT

R D Dhanuka, J. - By Arbitration Petition No.737 of 2019 filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the majority arbitral award dated 16th January,2019 and order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Act dismissing the said application.

2. By Arbitration Petition No.738 of 2019, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 16th January,2019 and the order dated 11th May, 2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal under section 16 of the Act dismissing the said application.

3. Commercial Arbitration Petition No.892 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 inter alia praying for setting aside the impugned award dated 30th March,2019 rendered by the sole arbitrator and order dated 11th October,2017 passed by the learned arbitrator rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act). By consent of parties, the aforesaid petitions were heard together finally at the admission stage and are being disposed of by a common order.

FACTS IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 737 OF 2019

4. In Arbitration proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, the petitioner was the original respondent whereas the respondent herein was the original claimant. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent had developed transgenic cotton variety seeds impregnated with the Bt.genes due to which the variety expresses a trait of producing an endotixin which can be the toxic to certain insects which are referred to as cotton bollworms. The Bt.genes/trait becomes a part of cotton genome and is inherited into the progeny through natural propagation. It was the case of the petitioner that the Bt.trait can be transferred as a part of normal cotton breeding process for developing new cotton varieties which also express Bt. trait.

5. On 20th January,2004, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Sub-Licence Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 2004 SLA'). The respondent gave 50 cotton seeds of transgenic variety with Bt.trait to the petitioner with a right to develop new Bt. cotton varieties using proprietary varieties of the petitioner and to sell cotton hybrid seeds with Bt. trait under applicable patent rights for a period of 10 years. The said 2004 SLA was extended from time to time until 10th March,2015 when renamed Bollgard Technology Licence Agreement dated 10th March,2015 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent for continuation of the rights granted under 2004 SLA .

6. It was the case of the petitioner that the said 2015 SLA was continuation of the 2004 SLA. According to the petitioner, the respondent did not transfer any technology, confidential information or knowhow under 2004 to the petitioner but had only provided 50 Donor seeds of a transgenic variety which was used by the petitioner to develop several new proprietary Bt.cotton varieties which were multiplied under agriculture operations to produce seeds and sell to farmers.

7. It was the case of the petitioner that under the said two agreements, the respondent was liable to pay to the petitioner and has paid one time non-refundable fee of Rs.50 lakhs. The respondent was also required to pay the amount as and by way of royalty fees/trait fees/ trait value on every 450gm packet of Bt.Cotton seeds of the proprietary varieties of the petitioner sold every year.

8. It was the case of the petitioner that since the year 2006-2007, the trait value charged and collected by the respondent had been subject to the various State Government Price Control Notifications. Since the year 2016, the said trait value was being regulated by the Central Government under the Cotton Seeds Price (Control) Order 2015. There were MRTP Proceedings filed against the respondent. Several interventions were made by the State Government in the i