TC - 13

Before
THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT
(Filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
SLP No……. 2023

Ignited Construction Private Limited...........................................................................Appellant

Versus

Vidyut Shakti Corporation of India Limited...............................................................Respondent

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

Law School, BHU, Intra-MOOT COURT, 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Index of Authorities.......................................................................................................3

2. Statement of Facts..........................................................................................................4

3. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION................................................................................5

4. Summary of Arguments.................................................................................................5

5. Written Pleadings...........................................................................................................6

I. Whether the Hon'ble High Court has jurisdiction under Section 11(6A) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to conclusively determine the existence and
Validity of the arbitration agreement?............................................................................6

[A] The Court’s jurisdiction is to determine existence only ........................................6

[B] It is in violation of the doctrine of "kompetenz-kompetenz"...................................6

[C] ‘Existence’ test under section 11 6A.......................................................................7

[D] The legislative intent in inserting the section..........................................................8

[E] Interplay between judicial intervention and party autonomy……………………….9

[F] International approaches to appoint arbitrators………..…………………………10

II. Whether the term "not thereafter" used in the Dispute Resolution Clause can't
interpreted to restrict the Petitioner ICPL from invoking Successive Arbitration for
subsequent dispute arising between the same parties under the same contract?

[A] No bar under order 2 rule 2 of CPC……………………………….……………….11

[B] Separate claims and issues…………….…………………...…........................... 12

[C]Successive arbitration is at par with natural justice…….…………..…………….12

[D] Interpreting the term “not thereafter”……………………………………………13

6. Prayer.............................................................................................................................14

2 |Page
3 |Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Indian Cases

1. Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729……………………………6

2. M/s Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman (2019) 8 SCC 714………………..6
3. Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited (2019)
SCCSC 1518)………………………………………………………………………………….6
4. Law Commission of India report no. 246 P. 40……………………………………………….7
5. Law Commission of India report no. 246 P. 45……………………………………………….7
6. Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 section 8………………………………………………7
7. Shin Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. V Aksh Optifibre, (2005) 7 Scc 234……………………….....8
8. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. V. Galaxy Infra And Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Ll 2021 Sc 147...…8
9. Law Comission of India report no. 246………………………………………………………8
10. Garware Wall Ropers Ltd. vs Coastal Marine Construction (2019) SCC…………………….9
SMS Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P.) Ltd., 2011 (14) SCC 66……………….9
11. NN Global Mercantile v Indo Unique Flame , 2021 (1) CTC 868…………………………….9
12. Swiss Timing Ltd v Organising committee, Commonwealth Game, Delhi, 2014 SCC…..…..9
13. A. Ayyasay Vs.Parmasivam&Others.(2016) 10 SCC 386…………………………………....10
14. M. v. Banque X., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull. ……………………………………….10
15. Cass, le civ., 26 June 2001, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) v. Copropriété Maritime
Jules Verne, 2001(3)…...………………………………………………………………………10
16. Premium Nafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40;
.Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd. v. Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd., [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)…10
17. Sup. Ct. Canada, Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 13 hily 2007,2007 SCC..10
18. Parsvnath Developers Limited &Anr. vs. Rail Land Development Authority, 2018
Delhi High Court ……………………………………………………………………………11
19. Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs. ONGC. (2010) 3 SCC 267…...………………………12

20. Gammon India Ltd. &Ors. vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 23 June, 2020……12
21. M.A. and Sons vs. Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1965 Mad 392…..12
22. Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs. ONGC. (2010) 3 SCC 267…...………………………13

4 |Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND: The proposition revolves around a scenario involving Bharat (a developing

country) and a dispute between two entities, Vidyut Shakti Corporation of India Limited
(VSCIL), ‘Respondent’ and Ignited Construction Private Limited (ICPL), ‘Appellant’. Bharat
is known for its growing economy, diverse industries, and commitment to renewable energy
generation. The government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy consumption and
climate action, as demonstrated at the COP26 conference.The government has been promoting
the country as an arbitration hub and a preferred destination for global investment.
PROGRESS AND DISPUTES:ICPL is contracted by VSCIL to construct electricity
transmission lines, aimed at advancing Bharat's renewable energy capacity. The contract
features an arbitration clause (Clause 25 & 26) to resolve disputes.
FIRST ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: The first phase of construction is completed on 10th
March 2022, with an invoice of Rs. 87,52,155 raised by ICPL. VSCIL makes deductions due
to unsatisfactory work.ICPL initiates the first arbitration proceedings on 20th April 2022,
seeking resolution for the dispute related to the first phase invoice.The Arbitral Tribunal
convenes on 1st June 2022 for the first arbitration proceedings. On 21st February 2023, an
award is issued in favor of ICPL regarding the claims in the first phase dispute.
SECONDPHASE&FURTHER DISPUTE: During the second phase of construction, completed
on 10th July 2022, ICPL raises a second invoice on 17th July 2022. VSCIL unilaterally
deducts fees for an Independent Engineer with no invoice for the payment supplied to ICPL,
prompting a new dispute.On 9th August 2022, ICPL attempts to amicably resolve disputes,
engaging in discussions with VSCIL.ICPL invokes arbitration again on 20th October 2022,
this time related to the second phase dispute. ICPL reserves the right to raise additional
claims.VSCILproposes conciliation as a settlement method on 10th November 2022, but
ICPL declines and urges VSCIL to nominate an arbitrator.On 28th November 2022, VSCIL
commits to nominating an arbitrator within 2 weeks.However, itlater objects to the arbitration
notice on 2nd January 2023, arguing that successive arbitration on the same contract is
impermissible.
APPLICATION TO HIGH COURT:ICPL files an application on 22nd February 2023 under
Section 11(6) of the Act for arbitrator nomination due to VSCIL's failure to appoint one.The
Madras High Court's ruling on 8th May 2023 supports VSCIL's stance, asserting that once the
arbitration clause is invoked, subsequent references are not allowed based on the contract's
language.

5 |Page
 APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT: Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision, ICPL has
appealed to the Supreme Court of Bharat, and the matter is scheduled for a hearing on
02.09.2023.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has jurisdiction under Section 11(6A) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to conclusively determine the existence and
validity of the arbitration agreement?

II. Whether the term “not thereafter” used in the Dispute Resolution Clause can
interpreted to restrict the Petitioner ICPL from invoking Successive Arbitration for
subsequent dispute arising between the same parties under the same contract?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has jurisdiction under Section 11(6A) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 to conclusively determine the existence and validity of the
arbitration agreement?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’Ble SC of India that Hon’ble High Courthas
Jurisdiction only to determine the existence and not of validity under 11(6A) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation,1996. It is the violation of the doctrine of Kompetenz-
Kompetenz if it does so. The legislative intent behind this section also states so to aiming
the minimal judicial intervention in arbitration proceeding. Variousindian judgements and
International approaches substantiate the fact that jurisdiction of the court is confine to
determine only the existence of the arbitration agreement.

II. Whether the term “not thereafter” used in the Dispute Resolution Clause can interpreted
to restrict the Petitioner ICPL from invoking Successive Arbitration for subsequent
dispute arising between the same parties under the same contract?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there is no bar under order 2 rule 2 of
CPC to invoke successive arbitration for subsequent dispute as subsequent dispute
doesn’t Fulfill the required condition of above. It is totally different claim and issue for
which the party is seeking the relief. Successive arbitration is at par with the natural

6 |Page
 justice.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION

11(6A) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 TO
CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT?

1. It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has jurisdiction under section 11(6A)
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to conclusively determine only the existence
and not the validity of the arbitration agreement. This contention can be substantiated by a
six-fold argument:
[A]THE COURT’S JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO DETERMINE EXISTANCE ONLY
2. Section 11(6A) of the Act states: that the Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High
Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-
section (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, confine to the
examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement." The scope of examination under
this section was discussed by the Supreme Court that while examining a petition under
Section 11(6A) of the Act, the Court would confine itself only to examining the existence of
an Arbitration Agreement between the parties and no more. The Court also laid down a
single test for such examination and observed that the only requirement was to see if the
contract between the parties contained an Arbitration Clause. 1 In another case the Supreme
Court held that the court can only determine the 'existence' of an arbitration agreement only
and all other preliminary issues have to be left to be decided by the Tribunal under Section
16 of the Act.2;
[B] IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF “KOMPETENZ-KOMPETENZ
3. It is in violation of the doctrine of "kompetenz-kompetenz", also referred to as
"compétence-compétence", implies that the Arbitral Tribunal is empowered and has the
competence to rule on its own jurisdiction, including determining all jurisdictional issues,
and the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This doctrine is intended to
minimise judicial intervention, so that the arbitral process is not thwarted at the threshold,
when a preliminary objection is raised by one of the parties.3

Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729

1.
M/s Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman [2019 8 SCC 714]
2.
7 |Page
 Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited v. Northern Coal Field Limited (2019 SCC SC 1518)
3.
[C]"EXISTENCE" TEST UNDER SECTION 11(6A)
4.Section 11(6A) was added to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act in 2015 upon the
recommendation of the Law Commission of India through its 246th Report, entitled
'Amendment to theArbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996'.30 This report emphasized on
making arbitrations in India more time-effective and cost-effective to ensure that it becomes
an effective and efficient alternative to the traditional dispute resolution process.

The report recommended the insertion of sub-section (6A) to Section 11 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, which read as follows, "An appointment under sub-section (4) or sub-
section (5) or sub-section (6) shall not be made only if the Court finds that the arbitration
agreement does not exist or is null and void."4 This was to mean that if a "… Court is prima
facie satisfied regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement, it shall refer the parties to
arbitration and leave the final determination of the existence of the arbitration agreement to
the arbitral tribunal in accordance with section 16, which shall decide the same as a
preliminary issue."5 This envisaged the same process of determination as is reflected in
Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, which deals with a judicial authority's
power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.6
The Commission prescribed similar tests as applicable in the context of Section 8 for
Sections 11 and 45 to ensure that the scope and nature of judicial intervention do not change
upon whether a party (intending to defeat the arbitration agreement) refuses to appoint an
arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement, or moves a proceeding before a judicial
authority in the face of such an arbitration agreement. 5 Hence, the test to determine the scope
of judicial intervention should not differ if parties approach the judicial authority under
Section 11(6) instead of Section 8, or vice-versa. The amended Section 8(1) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act states that "a judicial authority .. shall .. refer the parties to
arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists." Hence, the
scope of this judicial intervention is restricted to situations where the judicial authority prima
facie finds that a valid arbitration agreement does not exist. 6

Law Commission of India, Report No. 246, P 40

4.
5. Law Commission of India, Report No. 246,P 45

6. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, No. 26 of 1996, S8

It is submitted that a similar test should be applied while dealing with Section 11(6A)
8 |Page
 applications. This means that if the judicial authority is prima facie satisfied against the
argument challenging the arbitration agreement, it shall appoint the arbitrator and/or refer the
parties to arbitration, as the case may be. This exposition is in line with the Supreme Court's
decision where it ruled in favour of looking at the issues only prima facie in context of
Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.7
In furtherance of this, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently held that the prima
facie test has been read into Section 11(6A) to bring the provisions of Sections 8(1) and
11(6) r/w 11(6A) on par.8
In another case10, Supreme court laid down another test as follows- “1. the issues(first
category) which Chief Justice/his designate will have to decide are: (a) Whether the party
making the application has approached the appropriate High Court? (b) Whether there is an
arbitration agreement and whether the party who has applied under section 11 of the Act, is a
party to such an agreement? 2. The issues (second category) which the Chief Justice/his
designate should may choose to decide are: (a) Whether the claim is a dead claim or a live
claim? (b) Whether the parties have concluded the contract/transaction by recording
satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligation or by receiving the final payment without
objection? 3. The issue (third category) which the Chief Justice/his designate should leave
exclusively to the arbitral tribunal is: (a) Whether a claim falls within the arbitration
clause(as for example, a matter which is reserved for final decision of a departmental
authority and excepted or excluded from arbitration)? (b) Merits of any claim involved in the
arbitration.”

[D]THE LEGISLATURE INTENTION IN INSERTING THE SECTION

5. The Court further held that the legislature by amending the Act by way of the Arbitration
and Conciliation (Amendment Act) 2015 and the insertion of Section 11(6A) of the Act has
also restricted the scrutiny of the Court at the stage of adjudicating an application under
Section 11 of the Act only to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement.9

7. Shin Etsu Chemicals Co. Ltd. v Aksh Optifibre, (2005) 7 SCC 234

8. Pravin Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., LL 2021 SC 147

9. Law Commission of India, Report No. 246

A crucial aspect of statutory interpretation is discerning the legislative intent behind the
provision. Section 11 6A was designed the streamline the process of appointing the

9 |Page
 arbitrators and disputes arise regarding the appointments. The provision is explicit in
purpose of addressing the scenario where parties are unable to agree on an arbitrator. The
legislature emphasizes on court role as a facilitator of appointment suggest that its
jurisdiction is intentionally circumscribed to the preliminary issue of existence. The
provision does not confer a broader mandate upon the court to examine the validity and
legality of arbitration agreement. The absence of any language indicating the court authority
to validate the agreement strongly suggest that the legislature intended to maintain a limited
scope for court involvement.
Sections like 8 & 45 explicitly provide for court intervention in determining the validity and
enforceability of arbitration agreements or awards respectively. Given this specific provision
it is reasonable to infer that if the legislature intended for the court to validate the agreement
under section 11 6A, it would have expressly provided for such jurisdiction10.

[E]INTERPLAY BETWEEN MINIMAL JUDICIAL INTERVENTION AND PARTYATONOMY

6. Section 5 of the arbitration Act provides that the Court shall not intervene in the
arbitration process except in accordance with the provision contained in part 1of the
Arbitration Act. This policy of least interference in arbitration proceedings recognizes the
general principle that the function of courts in matters relating to arbitration is to support
arbitration process.
Court was only required to decide such preliminary issues such as jurisdiction to entertain
the application, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, whether a live claim existed or
not, for the purpose of appointment of an arbitrator. Court not required to undertake a
detailed scrutiny of the merits and de-merits of the case, almost as if he was deciding a suit17.
In NN Global Mercantile, the Court held that its duty under Section 11(6A) was confined to
a mechanical finding of the factum of an arbitration agreement and consequent appointment
of an arbitrator. It was held that "(t)he allegations made by a party that the substantive
contract has been obtained by coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation has to be proved by
leading evidence on the issue ..these issues can certainly be adjudicated through arbitration".
10.Garware Wall Ropers Ltd. vs Coastal Marine Construction (2019) SCC;

SMS Tea Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Chandmari Tea Co. (P.) Ltd., 2011 (14) SCC 66

11.NN Global Mercantile v Indo Unique Flame , 2021 (1) CTC 868.

12. Swiss Timing Limited v Organising committee, Commonwealth Game, Delhi, 2014 SCC

[F] INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS

7. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud opined that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act should be
interpreted ina manner that is consistent with the prevailing approaches in international
10 |Page
 arbitration.13A comparative study of the decisions of the highest courts in
Switzerland,14France,15 England,16 andCanada17reveals that all of them have adopted a
version of the prima facie test to determine theexistenceof an arbitration agreement, leaving
all other issues to the arbitral tribunals.
International arbitral institutions invest significant efforts into updating their respective rules
to ensure that they provide the most time and cost-efficient arbitral procedures.Hence, it is
safe to say that the rules of leading arbitral institutions reflect the prevailing approaches and
best practices in international arbitration.International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration
Rules 2021 - Article 6(4): In all cases referred to the Court under Article 6(3), the Court
shall decide whether and to what extent the arbitration shall proceed. The arbitration shall
proceed if and to the extent that the Court is prima facie satisfied that an arbitration
agreement under the Rules may exist.Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre
Arbitration Rules - Article 11(1): If a question arises as to the existence, validity or scope of
the arbitration agreement(s) or to the competence of HKIAC to administer the arbitration
before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, HKIAC may decide whether and to what
extent the arbitration shall proceed. The arbitration shall proceed if and to the extent that
HKIAC is satisfied, prima facie, that an arbitration agreement under these Procedures may
exist. Any question as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal shall be decided by the
arbitral tribunal once constituted.
Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules - Article 28(1): If any party
objects to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the competence of SIAC
to administer arbitration, before the Tribunal is constituted, the Registrar shall determine if
such objection shall be referred to the Court.

13. A. Ayyasay Vs.Parmasivam&Others.(2016) 10 SCC 386

14. Swiss Fed. Trib., 29 April 1996, Fondation M. v. Banque X., ATF 122 m 139,1996(3) ASA Bull. 527.

15. Cass, le civ., 26 June 2001, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) v. Copropriété Maritime Jules Verne, 2001(3) Rev. arb.

16 .PremiumNafta Products Ltd. v. Fili Shipping Co. Ltd. [2007] UKHL 40;

Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd. v. Homer Hulbert Maritime Co. Ltd., [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm).

17. Sup. Ct. Canada, Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 13 hily 2007,2007 SCC 34,2007

If the Registrar so determines, the Court shall decide if it is prima facie satisfied that the
arbitration shall proceed. The arbitration shall be terminated if the Court is not so satisfied.
Any decision by the Registrar or the Court that the arbitration shall proceed is without
prejudice to the power of the Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.
11 |Page
II. WHETHERTHE TERM “NOT THEREAFTER” USED IN THERESOLUTION
CLAUSEINTERPRETED TO RESTRICTTHE PETITIONER ICPL FROM INVOKING
SUCCESIVEARBITRATION FOR SUBSQUENTDISPUTE ARISING BETWEEBN THE
SAME PARTIESUNDER THE SAME CONTRACT?

[A] NO BAR UNDER ORDER 2 RULE 2 OF CPC

8. Order II Rule 2 of the CPC prescribes that every suit must include the whole claim that a
party is entitled to and when a part of a claim is relinquished, the same cannot be sued for
thereafter.
Coming to the present regime of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (the Act),
which highlights that the basic intent of the legislature was to provide autonomy to the
parties in determining the procedure, mode, manner, jurisdiction and timelines for the
arbitration. As such considering the history of this statute it cannot per se be said that the
present regime in any manner, bars the parties from having successive arbitrations. This
reasoning is further strengthened by the recent judicial pronouncements.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while dealing with a Section 11 of the Act, wherein the
Respondent declined to appoint an arbitrator on the ground that the dispute between the
parties have already been addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal and stood concluded by the
Arbitral Award. The Court held that the legislature by amending the Act by way of the
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment Act) 2015 and the insertion of Section 11(6A) of
the Act has also restricted the scrutiny of the Court at the stage of adjudicating an application
under Section 11 of the Act only to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement. The Court
further observed that an Arbitration agreement can be invoked any number of times and does
not cease to exist "only with the invocation for the first time."18

18.
Parsvnath Developers Limited &Anr. vs. Rail Land Development Authority, 2018, Delhi High Court

[B] SEPARATE CLAIMS AND ISSUES

If the successive arbitrations involve distinct claims or issues that were not addressed in the
previousarbitration, res judicata might not apply. Res judicata generally requires that the
same cause of action or issue has been fully litigated and decided in the previous case.

12 |Page
 The Delhi High Court while acknowledging that the perusal of the provisions of the Act
stated that the statute envisages that disputes can be raised at different stages and there can
be multiple arbitrations in respect of a single contract, however, criticized such multiplicity
of arbitral forums arising out of single contract and adjudicating upon overlapping disputes
functioning parallels. The court further held that:
The endeavour of courts in the domain of civil litigation is always to ensure that claims of
parties are adjudicated together, or if they involve overlapping issues, the subsequent suit is
stayed until the decision in the first suit. It is with the intention of avoiding multiplicity that
the principles enshrined in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), Section
10 of CPC and res judicata are a part of the CPC from times immemorial. As arbitral
proceedings are strictly not governed by the CPC, it is possible for parties to invoke
arbitration as and when the disputes arise. The underlying ratio in the case of Dolphin
Drilling Limited case,19 enumerates that all disputes that are in existence when the
arbitration clause is invoked, ought to be raised and referred at one go. Though, there is no
doubt that multiple arbitrations are permissible, it would be completely contrary to public
policy to permit parties to raise claims as per their own convenience.
It is possible that subsequent disputes may arise which may require a second reference,
however, if a party does not raise claims which exist on the date of invocation, it ought not
to be given another chance to raise it subsequently unless there are legally sustainable
grounds.20

[C] SUCCESIVE ARBITRATION IS AT PAR WITH NATURAL JUSTICE

A case which is of relevance qua the topic at hand was the case of M.A. and Sons vs. Madras
Oil and Seeds Exchange Ltd. and Anr21.

19.
Dolphin Drilling Limited. v. ONGC, AIR 2010 SC 1296
20.
Gammon India Ltd. &Ors. vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 23 June, 2020
21.
M.A. and Sons vs. Madras Oil and Seeds Exchange Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1965 Mad 392
In this case, the Court observed that there can be no doubt whatever that the appeal is a
creature of statute, and is a remedy that does not merely or automatically flow in favour of a
party upon any principle of natural justice or as part of the incidents of common law. It is
perfectly legal to provide for different stages of arbitration, such as, from a single arbitrator
to a committee of appeal. It is the award which finally emerges from this procedure which is
13 |Page
 conclusive as between the parties and not liable to be set aside, except as provided for in
Section 30 of the Arbitration Act of 1940. The legal pursuit of successive remedies will
make them all proceedings 'connected by an intrinsic unity' and 'to be regarded as one legal
proceedings.
[D] INTERPRETING “NOT THEREAFTER”

In legal terms, the phrase “not thereafter” refers to a particular point in time after which an
action or event can not occur. When the phrase is used in a legal provision or contract, it
generally signifies a time limitation or deadline. However, it does not necessarily imply that
successive proceedings are barred.
It is important to note that the interpretation of a legal provision or contract is subjective and
depends on the specific context and language used. The Hon’ble Court has address the
scenairo in the relevant case ,22 in case a dispute has arisen and arbitration is needed to be
invoked , the party invoking the arbitration has to include all the claims that have already
arisen on the date of invocation of the arbitration proceedings should be included; Same as
second issue arises after the first notice so here not thereafter used in dispute resolution
clause does not barred ICPL for successive arbitration.

22.
Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs. ONGC . (2010) 3 SCC 267

PRAYER

Whereby, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to
graciously adjudge and be pleased to:

14 |Page
 1) UPHOLD the principles of fairness, equity, and justice by allowing the
Appellant's legitimate concerns arising from the second phase of the project to
be duly heard and adjudicated through proper arbitration proceedings.

2) GRANT the Appellant's a fair opportunity to present their case before a

competent and impartial tribunal, in accordance with the tenets of the
arbitration clause and the broader principles of contractual integrity.

And/or
Pass any other order sit deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS,

THE APPELLANT SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAYS.

On Behalf of the Appellant

Counsel for Appellant

15 |Page