Vibhu Bakhru, J.

Introduction

1. Rhiti Sports Management Private Limited (hereafter ‘the petitioner’) has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter ‘the Act’) impugning an order dated 19.09.2017 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole arbitrator (hereafter ‘the Arbitral Tribunal’). By the impugned order, the Arbitral Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) Code of Civil Procedure for taking “on record the e-mail dated 06.09.2013 and the Services Agreements dated 23.07.2010 and 24.09.2012”

2. The first and foremost question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the impugned order can be construed as an arbitral award that is susceptible to challenge under Section 34 of the Act.

Factual context

3. Briefly stated, the aforesaid controversy arises in the following context:

3.1 The India Cements Limited (ICL) was granted franchise rights by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for forming a cricket team to represent the City of Chennai in twenty-twenty Cricket Tournaments. The said team is now called “Chenn