1. The dispute regarding the domain name ‘internet.in’ forms the subject O.M.P. No.132 of 2007 Page 1 of 27 matter of the present petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) directed against an Award dated 5th July 2006 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.1 in O.M.P. No. 132 of 2007) appointed by the National Internet Exchange of India (‘NIXI’) .

2. Respondent No. 2 (in O.M.P. No. 132 of 2007) Mr. Jagdish Purohit filed a complaint before the .IN Registry of NIXI on 31st January 2003, under Para 4 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (‘INDRP’) to the effect that the domain name ‘internet.in’ registered by the Petitioner, Mr. Stephen Koenig, was identical and confusingly similar to the registered trade mark ‘internet’ of Respondent No. 2; that the Petitioner had no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the said domain name and that the Petitioner’s domain name had been registered or was being used in bad faith. The Petitioner responded to the notice issued to him and defended the domain name registration in his favour.

3. The learned Arbitrator passed the impugned Award on 5th July 2006 in which inter alia he concluded that the domain name ‘internet.in’ should be struck off and confiscated and kept by the .IN Registry. He rejected the prayer of Respondent No.2 that the domain name should be transferred to him.

4. The Petitioner has in O.M.P. No. 132 of 2007 challenged the impugned Award primarily on the ground that it was contrary to the INDRP inasmuch as Respondent No.2 had failed to prove the ingredients of Para 4 thereof in order to succeed in his complaint and further that the learned Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering the confiscation of the domain name by the .IN Registry when no such remedy is provided in Para 10 of the INDRP. O.M.P. No.132 of 2007 Page 2 of 27

5. Even prior to the Petitioner filing the present petition, Respondent No. 2 filed Suit No. 209 of 2006 in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi (‘ADJ’) challenging the Award to the extent that the learned Arbitrator had rejected the plea of Respondent No. 2 for transfer of the domain name in his favour. After notice was issued in the present petition, Respondent No. 2 filed Transfer Petition No. 14 of 2007 seeking transfer of the said Suit No. 209 of 2006 to this Court. By an order dated 30th November 2007 this Court allowed Transfer Petition No. 14 of 2007 and directed Suit No.209 of 2006 to be tagged with the present petition. It has been numbered as a separate petition under Section 34 of the Act. For the purposes of the present judgment Mr. Stephen Koenig is referred to as the Petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Purohit as Respondent No.2. Preliminary objection as to limitation

6. Mr. Sushant Singh, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, raised a preliminary objection that the petition by Mr. Stephen Koenig, O.M.P. No. 132 of 2007, was barred by limitation. He pointed out that the learned Arbitrator by a letter dated 5th July 2006 addressed to NIXI, a copy of which was also sent by email, enclosed a copy of the Award. In the said letter, the Arbitrator stated that he had sent a copy “of the letter and Award to parties also by e-mail.” It is submitted that inasmuch as Respondent No.2 on receiving a copy of the Award filed Suit No. 2009 of 2006 on 6th October 2006 within time, there could not be a different date of commencement of the period of limitation for the purposes of Section 34 (3) as far as the Petitioner was concerned. The present petition was filed only on 9th March 2007 and the explanation offered by the Petitioner that he received a copy of the Award from NIXI only on 13th December 2006 after writing to it was not convincing. Placing reliance on the decisions in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. AIR 2001 SC 4010 and Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors O.M.P. No.132 of 2007 Page 3 of 27 (2005) 4 SCC 239 it was contended