JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral). - ARB.P. 593/2020, LA. 10525/2020 & LAs. 987-988/2021

1. The earlier rejection of a nearly identical petition, also filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short 'the Act'), for the same relief as sought in the present petition has not dissuaded it from making another attempt. The Petitioner asserts that notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier petition, the instant petition is maintainable as a new cause of action has occurred. The Court is eager to know what this new cause of action is.

Brief Facts

2. Since the facts of the case have a long and chequered history leading to multiple litigations before this Court, it would be apposite to briefly note crucial facts, before embarking upon deciding the contentions put forth by the parities. As a matter of fact, the factual narrative stated in the instant petition is largely identical to what had been stated in the earlier petition. Thus, we have taken the liberty, in certain places, to cull out some facts verbatim as recorded in the judgment of this Court in the previous round of litigation in Arb. P. 143/2018.[1]

[1] Delivered on 23rd July,