JUDGMENT

C Hari Shankar, J. - Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (abbreviated, hereinafter, to "Edelweiss") invokes Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act") to challenge order, dated 17th December, 2019, passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, which directed M/s. GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GIL") to pay Rs. 240 crores to M/s. GTL Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GTL") and to deposit Rs. 200 crores in an Escrow account, to be maintained by GIL.

2. Gtl and GIL were the claimant and respondent, before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, respectively. The operative paragraphs of the impugned Order, with which Edelweiss claims to be aggrieved, reads thus:

"37. It is accordingly ordered that:

(i) The Respondent will pay a sum of Rs. 40 crores to the Claimant before or by 27th December, 2019 towards Security Deposit as contemplated under Clause 4.5 of the Suspension Agreement dated 8th March, 2018. (hereinafter referred to as the "Suspension Agreement")

(ii) The Respondent shall pay Rs. 400 crores in accordance with the below mentioned schedule:

80 Crores to be paid directly to the Claimant	Before or by 27th December, 2019
80 Crores to be deposited in an Escrow Account to be maintained by the Respondent	Before or by 27th January, 2020
80 Crores to be paid directly to the Claimant	Before of by 27th February, 2020
80 Crores to be deposited in an Escrow Account to be maintained by the Respondent	Before or by 27th March, 2020
40 Crores to be paid to the Claimant directly Before or by 27th April, 2020 40 Crores to be deposited in an Escrow Account to be maintained by the Respondent	Before or by 27th April, 2020

(iii) The Claimant shall provide uninterrupted services to the Respondent subject to the terms of payment contained in the two foregoing sub-clauses.

38. The Respondent has agreed to furnish the details of the Escrow Account with the Tribunal as well as the Claimant on or before 27th December, 2019. It is made clear that in the eventuality of any default in adhering to the schedule mentioned above, the Respondent shall become immediately liable for payment of the entire sum of Rs. 400 crores less the unpaid/remaining sum to the Claimant.

39. It is clarified that the present order shall await the Final Award and shall be subject to adjustments in order to conform to the Final Award."

3. Edelweiss was not a party before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, but claims to be vitally affected by the impugned directions. In fact, it is claimed, by Edelweiss, that GIL and GTL are in collusion, and that they misled the learned Arbitral Tribunal into passing the impugned Order, suppressing the fact that Edelweiss had a first charge over the monies which GIL has been directed to pay to GTL, or to deposit in the Escrow account.

4. Before appreciating the grievance of Edelweiss, it would be necessary to briefly capitulate the facts and the justification, cited in the impugned Order, for issuing the above directions.

The Impugned Order

5. M/S. Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd . (hereinafter referred to as "CNIL") and the Aircel group of Companies (hereinafter referred to as "Aircel") entered into an Existing Site Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "ESA") dated 14th January, 2010, whereunder Aircel agreed to provide CNIL sites and land on ownership/tenancy basis, to be developed by CNIL, so as to enable Aircel to set up, on such sites/land, Active Equipment/infrastructure, using which Aircel could provide telecommunication services.

6. Under Clause 6 of the ESA, a tripartite Energy Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "EMA") was executed, on 14th January, 2010 itself, between CNIL, Aircel and GTL. Clause 3.1 of the EMA obligated CNIL to oversee the management of ele