JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in Arb.O.P.No.314 of 2021: Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) & 2 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 19/10/2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal which has arisen out of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent and allow the petitioner’s claim petition.

Arb.O.P.No.97 of 2021: Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 (2) (b) (ii) & 2 A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the impugned portion of the majority Arbitral Award dated 19/10/2020 rendered by the learned Tribunal whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents as compensation for the investments made with interest @ 18% p.a., w.e.f the date of the award.)

1. Challenging the majority award passed by the arbitral Tribunal, while the petitioner/claimant has filed Arb.O.P.No.314 of 2021, challenging the said portion of the award in and by which the compensation of Rs.10 lakhs has been awarded, the respondent in Arb.O.P.No.314 of 2021 has filed Arb.O.P.No.97 of 2021.

2. Since both the Arbitration Original Petitions are arising out of the same award, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the Arb.O.Ps by way of a common order.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the O.Ps are as follows:-

The petitioner and respondent had entered into a dealership agreement, on 14/2/2014, for a period of two years, for the dealership of NISSAN Brand Passenger Car, for the State of Maharashtra, West/Nagpur Region. On expiry of two years, fresh agreement was signed, on 14/2/2016, for an another period of two years, i.e., upto 31/3/2018. As per the respondent’s policy, the petitioner had to raise infrastructure (showroom, workshop etc.). The passenger car selling and servicing is a specialised business which requires technical skills with a hope that the dealership can be for a minimum period of 15-20 years. Accordingly, the petitioner had invested a huge amount of 10.5 crores on building. Though the agreement period is mentioned as two years, the dealership and the period mentioned in the dealership agreement was not followed by the parties. Suddenly in the year 2018, the respondent had started discontinuing the existing dealership.

4. In view of the sudden discontinuation, the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No.314 of 2021 had suffered huge loss and hence raised the following claims:-

5. As per Clause 17.1 of the agreement, dated 14/2/2016, period of agreement shall continue till 31/3/2018. However, the petitioner in Arb.O.P.No.314 of 2021, received a letter, dated 15/2/2018, only on 14/3/2018, stating that the dealership will not be continued beyond the date of expiry of the agreement. According to him, the discontinuance of the dealership agreement is contrary to the terms of the agreement and the petitioner is entitled to the losses and damages suffered by them on account of the discontinuance. Therefore, as on 12/11/2018, respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,34,35,009/-, with interest, at the rate of 18% p.a.

6. It is stated by the petitioner in the rejoinder before the Arbitral Tribunal that the claims made by the petitioner are well established through the data available on the Dealer Man