The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review of arbitral awards, the requirement to demonstrate patent illegality, and the principles of natural justice and a judicial approach in arbitral decisions.

ORDER :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

I.A. 774/2020 (Delay)

1. The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 70 days in filing the petition is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

O.M.P. (COMM) 32/2020

1. The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :

(a) set aside the Award dated 9 September 2019;

(b) direct Respondent No.2 to re-commence the arbitration proceedings by appointing a new arbitrator and supervise such proceedings to ensure that they are conducted in compliance with law;

(c) direct the Respondents to bear the costs of the present Petition;

(d) pass such other and further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case;

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Petitioner is the president of mPedigree Network which is involved in the development of a range of software products and services in various industries across several countries. Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA, providing brand protection services in certain African countries as well as in India. The Petitioner registered the Disputed Domain Name, ‘sproxil’, on 23rd October 2013 and on 6th November 2014, the Respondent No.1 sent a cease and desist notice to the Petitioner alleging that mPedigree as well as the Petitioner have been making unlawful use of Respondent No.1’s trademarks and web domains, which Respondent No.1 claims to have been in use and occupation since 2011, i.e., two years prior to the date of registration by the Petitioner.

3. Subsequent to this, on 3rd February 2015, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before National Internet Exchange of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIXI’) in respect of the disputed domain name. Arbitration proceedings were conducted pursuant to the First Complaint and an arbitral award was passed. This arbitral award was set aside by the Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 9th May 2018 on the grounds that the impugned arbitral award was passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.

4. On 28th June 2019, another complaint was filed by Respondent No.1 in respect of the same disputed domain name with NIXI alleging inter alia that the Petitioner had registered the Disputed Domain Name by making false representations of knowledge under paragraph 3 of the .IN Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as ‘INDRP Policy’). Subsequent to this complaint, Respondent no.2 appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes set out in the complaint. On 9th September 2019, the learned sole arbitrator passed the impugned award finding that :

(i) the Petitioner had no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

(ii) the Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Petitioner in bad faith, and directing that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from the Petitioner to Respondent No. 1, with a request to Respondent No. 2 to monitor the transfer.

5. Aggrieved with the findings recorded in the impugned arbitral award, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in support of the instant petition has submitted that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality, it is contrary to the fundamental principles of Indian Law and also contrary to the public policy. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel has submitted that the arbitrator has not only erroneously excluded relevant evidence on record but has also taken into consideration extraneous and irrelevant material to come to the conclusion that the Disputed Domai