IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of efficiency and expediency in arbitral proceedings and upheld the Tribunal's assessment of evidence based on the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"], the petitioner assails an Arbitral Award dated 19.08.2023 ["Award"] rendered by a three-member Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,01,783/- and interest thereupon in favour of the respondent, and also made an order of costs against the petitioner.

A. Facts

2. The respondent is an importer, trader and distributor of mobile phones and related accessories. The petitioner [then known as iQor Global Services India Pvt. Ltd.] entered into an agreement dated 29.01.2016 ["Agreement"] with the respondent, a partnership firm, for provision of certain after-sale services related to mobile phones. The petitioner was to provide service centres to undertake service requests of the respondent or its customers. It claims to have set up service centres in several locations for this purpose.

3. The dispute between the parties principally arises out of a claim of the respondent for the cost of spare parts supplied by it to the petitioner. It is common ground that the services provided by the petitioner at the service centres was in respect of both, goods which were within the warranty period and those outside the warranty period. The petitioner used to order spare parts from the respondent for both kinds of services. However, it was entitled to credit from the respondent on account of spare parts which were used in repairs within warranty. To claim such credit, the petitioner was required to return the defective spare parts to the respondent, in order to establish that the corresponding replacement parts had been utilised for repairs under warranty. As far as the repairs which were not within the warranty period are concerned, the petitioner was entitled to charge agreed service charges from the customers, but was liable to pay the respondent for the spare parts consumed. The parties were unable to reconcile the accounts for the spare parts supplied.

4. On 15.11.2017, the respondent enchased a bank guarantee of Rs.1,00,00,000/- furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed that a sum of Rs.2,69,67,450/- was payable by the respondent to it, as stated in a notice dated 12.04.2018. Arbitration was ultimately invoked by the respondent's communication dated 18.03.2019, and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted.

B. Proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal

5. The respondent herein was the claimant before the Tribunal. In its statement of claim dated 31.05.2019, the respondent claimed that the petitioner had signed three "declaration letters" contemporaneously, upon reconciliation of accounts. The last one was for the period from 01.02.2017 to 30.03.2017, by which it acknowledged its outstandings to the tune of Rs.8,03,87,690/-. The respondent also produced a chart, wherein the final balance amount payable as on 25.05.2019 was stated to be Rs.3,36,01,783/- [after adjustment of the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- recovered by encashment of the petitioner's bank guarantee]. The respondent also sought payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a.

6. The petitioner filed a statement of defence and counter-claim, both dated 16.08.2019. It sought to rely upon data maintained in the "Customer Relation Management" ["CRM"] portal of the respondent, contending that the CRM data was used to reconcile the accounts between the parties. The petitioner asserted that all spare parts returned by it to the respondent, were accounted for in the CRM portal. The petitioner also placed on record a summary of the CRM data and invoices raised by it for the period of October 2015 to June 2017, alongwith a demonstration of the month-wise and total number of items/products returned by it to the respondent, with corresponding delivery challan numbers of such returns. As the complete CRM data for this period was of approximately 30,000 pages, it was filed before the Tribunal in electronic form. As far as the declaration letters are conc