JUDGMENT

INDEX

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

I.A. No. 6182/2022 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 414/2021 (by the petitioner seeking condonation of 6 days delay in filing reply to IA No.4739/2022)

1.1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

1.2. The delay of 6 days in filing reply to the application is condoned and the reply is taken on record.

1.3. Application is disposed of.

I.A. No. 7938/2022 in O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 414/2021 (by the respondent No.2 seeking condonation of 3 days delay in filing written submissions and for taking written submissions on record)

1.4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 3 days in filing the written submissions is condoned. The written submissions are taken on record.

1.5. Application is disposed of.

Arb.P. 474/2022 & O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 414/2021

1.6. By this order, I shall decide the above two petitions as the facts and the subject matter of the petitions arise from the same agreement(s) and the parties in both the petitions are common except to the extent that respondent No.3 in ARB.P. 474/2022 is Essel Corporate LLP. Further, some of the submissions advanced are common to both the petitions. It may be stated that the submissions advanced by the counsels for the parties and the analysis of the Court shall be narrated separately.

FACTS IN ARB. P. 474/2022

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ('Act of 1996') with the following prayers:

"In the above noted facts and circumstances, it is most humbly prayed before, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) Allow the present Petition and appoint a Ld. Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, in accordance with Clause 12 of CAL read with Clause 33 of the Facility Agreement;

(b) Award costs of this Petition as per Section 31 (A) of the Act be paid by the respondents in favour of the petitioner; and

(c) Such further or other order or orders and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

3. It is a case where the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Indian Rayon Compound, Veraval, Gujarat-362266. The Petitioner is registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, as a Systemically Important, Non-Deposit taking Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC).

4. Whereas the respondent No.1 i.e., the Siti Networks Limited is a publicly listed company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 4th floor Madhu Industrial Estate, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400018. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 is primarily involved in the business inter alia of providing broadband services to its consumers.

5. Whereas the respondent No. 2 i.e., Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited is a publicly listed company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 18th Floor, A Wing Marathon Future, N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, M