JUDGMENT :

Prateek Jalan, J.

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing]

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against two orders, dated 21.09.2021 and 03.02.2022, passed by an Arbitral Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in proceedings between the parties herein, arising out of an agreement dated 26.10.2017 [“the agreement”].

Facts

2. The parties entered into the agreement for provision of certain services by the respondent-Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. [“Panasonic”] to the petitioner-Virtual Perception OPC Pvt. Ltd. [“VPL”]. Disputes arose between them, which were referred to arbitration by an order of this Court dated 28.11.2019 in ARB.P. 428/2019 filed by Panasonic. Panasonic is the claimant before the Tribunal, and VPL is the respondent.

3. In the course of the arbitral proceedings, Panasonic filed an affidavit of evidence of one witness, namely Mr. Arvind Gopal. The affidavit of the witness was tendered in evidence on 05.04.2021, and he was partly cross examined on that date. It appears that there were some talks between the parties thereafter for a mutual settlement, and the proceedings were, in fact, next