JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.:— The instant petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter “The Act, 1996”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) set aside the impugned award dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Ld. Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings titled M/s Maverick Mobile Solutions Pvt. Ltd. V s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.;

(b) Summon the complete arbitral record from the Ld. Arbitrator before this Hon'ble court;

(c) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Petitioner, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harish Chander Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi 110001. The petitioner is a state-owned telecom company engaged in providing telecom services all over the country, except the cities of Mumbai and Delhi.

3. The respondent, M/S Maverick Mobile Solutions is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at D-34B, ground floor, Moti Nagar, New Delhi 110015. The respondent is involved in the business of envisaging and developing mobile applications to enhance the user experience of mobile devices, mobile application conceptualization, development and advanced data services.

4. The Department of Post (hereinafter “DoP”), in June 2008 approached the petitioner to avail the services of SMS in order to launch Electronic Money Order Service for their customers.

5. In the midst of consideration of the proposal, in October 2008, the respondent/claimant approached the petitioner with a Mobile Banking & E-Commerce Proposal for which a field trial was subsequently conducted at Petitioner's network in Chandigarh. Thereafter, the respondent/claimant approached the DoP and the petitioner on 2nd December 2008 wherein it was decided that the respondent would be positioned as the tech partner and a small pilot would be started on 1st March 2009. It was further decided that the petitioner will enter into an agreement with both the DoP and the respondent separately.

6. An Agreement dated 27th March 2012 was made between the petitioner and the DoP for 36 months (hereinafter “DoP Agreement”) followed by an Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent/claimant dated 30th March 2012 (Main Agreement). The terms and conditions of the Main Agreement were more or less in consonance with the DoP Agreement signed between the DoP and the petitioner.

7. The Agreement between the petitioner and the respondent was on a revenue-sharing basis in the ratio of 60 : 40. The Mobile Money Transfer Service (MMTS) technology was the backbone for the successful implementation thereof.

8. The petitioner had to act as a facilitator between the respondent and the DoP for smooth execution. As per the terms of the Agreement, hardware, equipment, software, installation, testing, and commissioning, training and handsets, would be provided and carried out by the respondent and the petitioner had the responsibility of providing network, SIM cards and implementing necessary guidelines for the smooth functioning of the project.

9. Both Agreements were renewed once again for a period of 36 months till 29th March 2018 after which the DoP decided not to renew the same after the expiry of the second term. Consequently, the petitioner informed the respondent about the same and the Main Agreement also came to an end in terms of Clause 3, Part I, of the Commercial Conditions of the Main Agreement, to which the respondent protested. However, the DoP gave reasons vide various communications regarding the same.

10. On 29th July 2019, the respondent/claimant invoked Arbitration Clause alleging wrongful termination of the Contract and seeking damages from Chief Managing Director,