The court emphasized that there was no provision for review of an order passed under Section 9 of the arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996, and that the petitioner's request for deletion of a concluding caveat in the judgment was not justified.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This is a somewhat unusual Review Petition, preferred by the appellant who has, otherwise, succeeded in the appeal.

2. The Review Petition seeks, essentially, deletion from para 56 of the judgement, dated 18th November, 2020, passed by me in arb a (Comm) 13/2020, of the last sentence. Para 56 of the judgment dated 18th November, 2020, reads thus:

'56. The order, dated 5th May, 2020, passed by the High Court of Bombay in the Suit LD-VC No. 55/20, discloses that, consequent to the issuance of the impugned directions, by the learned arbitral Tribunal, a settlement had been arrived at, between GIL and GTL, consequent to which ? 320 crores had been transferred by GIL to GTL. The order also discloses that this amount was, subsequently, transferred back by GTL and stands deposited in the TRa, maintained in accordance with the TRa agreement. The impugned directions of the learned arbitral Tribunal would, therefore, stand modified to the extent that all payments directed thereunder, would be deposited, not with GIL or in an Escrow account to be maintained by GIL, but in the TRa, created and maintained in accordance with the TRa agreement. The said deposit shall remain subject to further orders to be passed by the learned arbitral Tribunal.' (Emphasis supplied)

Edelweiss asset Reconstruction Co ('Edelweiss', hereinafter), the appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the Review Petition, prays that the concluding caveat in the afore-extracted para 56, subjecting the deposit to further orders to be passed by the learned arbitral Tribunal, be deleted.

3. In order to understand the circumstances in which the present Review Petition has come to be filed, a brief overview of my judgement dated 18th November, 2020, is necessary.

4. among GTL Ltd ('GTL'), the aircel group of companies and Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd (CNIL), a slew of agreements [(i) Existing Site agreement (ESa) dated 14th January, 2010 between CNIL and aircel, (ii) Energy Management agreement (EMa) dated 14th January, 2010, among CNIL, aircel and GTL, (iii) New Site agreement dated 14th January, 2010 between CNIL and aircel and (iv) TSPI agreement, dated 28th January, 2010, as modified by addendum dated 9th February, 2010, between CNIL and GTL.] were executed. The upshot of these agreements was this. aircel desired to provide telecommunication services, on sites owned by it. CNIL, vide the ESa, agreed to develop the said sites. In pursuance thereof, the EMa obligated CNIL to oversee management of electricity and diesel consumption at the sites. The EMa, however, permitted CNIL to outsource this responsibility. acting under the said permission, CNIL outsourced, to GTL, the responsibility of managing electricity and diesel consumption at the sites provided by aircel. Consequent thereupon, vide the TSPI agreement, GTL agreed, on behalf of CNIL, to procure necessary material for establishing Passage Telecom Infrastructure on the sites provided by aircel, so that they would be converted into completely built-up telecom sites.

5. The NSa obligated aircel to submit 20,000 proposals for sites to be developed by CNIL, over a period of 3 years. Of these, at least 4000 proposals were required to be submitted each year; referred to, in the NSa, as the 'annual Commitment' of aircel. The TSPI agreement obligated CNIL to indemnify GTL against any loss or damages suffered by it, directly or indirectly, on account of failure, on the part of aircel/CNIL to provide the Minimum Commitment of 20,000 new sites to GTL.

6. Consequent on the institution of the above agreements, CNIL issued a Purchase Order, to GTL, on 5th February, 2010, for ? 4350 crores, which was accepted by the GTL. GTL proceeded to source requisite material, to comply with the Purchase Order. CNIL, however, failed to provide details of the sites where the material must be delivered by GTL. This resulted in financial prejudice to the GTL, and the consequent dispute, which was 'settled' for ? 1800