An order qualifies as an award or interim award when it decides a substantive dispute between the parties, and rejection of an impleadment application does not constitute an interim award.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Kumar Jain, J. The present appeal has been filed under section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to impugn the order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (COMM) 235/2019.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondents were owners of 11 windmill assets consisting of land, load and machines in Karnataka and entered into 5 separate sale agreements dated 02.09.2016 for the sale of aforesaid 11 windmill projects, as ongoing business/units to the appellant for the sale consideration of Rs.19.62 crores and Addendums were also executed on 02.09.2016 to aforesaid Agreements to Sell.

2.1. The appellant had paid Rs.1.96 crores as advance under the Agreements to Sell and the Addendums dated 02.09.2016 to the respondents. The appellant was required to carry out due diligence in 30 days subject to the fulfillment of the conditions i.e. permission by seller/O&M Contractor for the site inspection and receipt of all required documentation by the appellant within 30 days.

2.2. The appellant vide e-mail dated 08.09.2016, requested the respondents to provide necessary documents but failed to provide complete set of requisite documents. The respondents also did not fulfil the first condition of site inspection i.e. an NOC from Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Contractor.

2.3. As per Clauses 9 of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2016, the seller shall not offer the wind power project for sale to any other party unless the buyer opts to exit from this agreement in writing. The respondents unilaterally terminated the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2016, despite the appellant never exercised its right to exit from the said agreement.

2.4. The appellant filed petitions under section 9 of the Act whereby the respondents vide common interim order dated 20.12.2017 were directed to maintain the status quo regarding the possession and ownership of the windmill projects in terms of 5 Agreements to Sell dated 02.09.2016. The respondents filed the reply.

2.5. The appellant filed a petition under section 11 of the Act against the respondents and vide order dated 29.05.2018, this court had appointed a former Judge of this court as Sole Arbitrator. The appellant filed common statement of claim of 11 windmills along with application under section 17 of the Act. The said applications were disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 08.08.2018. The respondents filed statement of defence on 14.09.2019 wherein the respondents, for the first time, disclosed details of the alleged sale of 11 windmill projects vide Agreement to Sell dated 19.07.2017 for total consideration of Rs.7 crores. The appellant also filed fresh application under section 17 of the Act for interim relief seeking direction against the respondents to deposit the sale consideration receipt from the alleged sale of 11 windmills and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2.6. The appellant on 29.04.2019 moved an application under Order 1 Rule X of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC") before the learned Sole Arbitrator for impleadment of transferees i.e. (i) One Ohm Thought Power India Private Limited; (ii) Berkley Learning Private Limited; (iii) SML Electricals India Private Limited and (iv) M/s AS Infra, to whom the respondents had allegedly sold and transferred the 11 windmill projects vide Agreement to Sell dated 19.07.2017 in violation to Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2016. The learned Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 14.05.2019 dismissed the said application for impleadment of the subsequent transferees in the arbitration proceedings. The learned Sole Arbitrator observed as under:

(i)"...this Tribunal is of the view that if a decree is ultimately passed in favour of the claimant and his prayer for specific performance is granted, t