IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'live dispute' and 'admitted liability' in the context of arbitration proceedings, and the court's reliance on relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the Impugned Award dated 08.11.2022 passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal titled as "Nantong Siber Communication Co. Ltd. vs. Aksh Optifibre Limited".

2. In the present case, the respondent is a Chinese manufacturer of optical fibre cable and had approached the arbitral tribunal seeking payment of $194,336.91 along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

3. The respondent/claimant had relied upon seven invoices issued pursuant to the seven purchase orders and since the amounts were unpaid, the respondent invoked arbitration and filed the proceedings.

4. The sole arbitrator was appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 15.11.2021 in Arbitration Petition (C) No. 27/2021.

5. On 07.05.2022 the learned sole arbitrator framed six issues, which read as under:

"I. Whether the arbitration proceedings are misconceived because there is no live dispute between the parties? [LIVE DISPUTE]

II. Whether the Claim, and hence, these proceedings are vitiated due to a lack of proper and legal authorization? [AUTHORIZATION]

III. Whether a composite arbitration proceeding, arising out of several independent transactions, each with a separate and independent arbitration clause, is unsustainable in law? [COMPOSITE PROCEEDING]

IV. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an award of $194,336.91 in light of the admission of liability by the Respondent? [ENTITLEMENT]

V. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any interest on the amount, if any, awarded against Issue No.4? If yes, at what rate and for what period? [INTEREST] 53

VI. Whether the Respondent is obliged to make the payment only in the event of receiving the same from BSNL? [CONDITIONALITY]".

6. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to findings on issue No. 1 and issue No. 5.

7. As regards issue No. 1, he states that there was no live dispute between the parties since the petitioner has admitted the amount due and payable to the respondent and has admitted the invoice. Hence, the arbitrator could not have proceeded with the arbitration.

8. In support, he has relied upon the judgment of "Maruti Udyog Limited vs. Mahalaxmi Motors Ltd. & Anr." 2002 (61) DRJ 398 and "Pearl Hosiery Mills, Ludhiana vs. Union of India and Anr.", 1978 SCC OnLine Delhi 120.

9. As regard issue No. 5 is concerned, Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the finding that the interest awarded be at the rate of 8% per annum on $194,336.91 and states the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Vedanta Limited vs. Shenzhen Shandong Nuclear Power Construction Company Limited", (2019) 11 SCC 465.

10. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the same and argues in support of upholding the arbitral award.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12. In the present case, the learned arbitrator while deciding issue No. 1 has held that the petitioner delayed in making the payment to the respondent, which was not accepted by the respondent. Hence, this itself constituted a difference and dispute.

13. The learned arbitrator also held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.11.2021 referred for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties clearly implying that there were disputes for which an arbitrator was required.

14. In the present case, merely statements by the petitioner that the petitioner are admitting the claims but not making the payment will not take the issue in controversy beyond "disputes" as contemplated between the parties.

15. The respondent has supplied goods for which payment has not been received. The respondent asked for payment and as per the purchase order, every payment was to be made within a period of 90 days. The notice demanding payment is dated 07.02.2020, wherein the respondent demanded the amount due and payable within seven days from the receipt of that notice.

16. A combined reading of the aforesaid clearly shows