Counsel seeks permission to approach the Dias

Much obliged .

Good afternoon to the hon’ble bench.

The counsel acknowledge the gracious presence of the bench however for the sake of brevity of
the proceedings , seeks the kind consent to collectively address the bench as your lordship.

Much obliged.

The counsel is appearing before this hon’ble court in the matter of PPIPL V AMSPL , on behalf of
the Respondent in response to the petition filed under sec 42 r/w sec 2(1)(e)(ii)&2(1)(f)(ii).

Your lordships ,there are 4 main issues involved in the present case.

The counsel will be dealing with the first and 2nd and would be speaking for 12 mins, and my co-
counsel would be dealing with the issue 3,4 and would be speaking for 8 min .

The counsel seeks permission to brief the fact of the case .

Much obliged , your lordship

* There are two company PPIPL AMSPL, AMSPL agreed to sell and supply PPIPL with 28 tanker
shipments of Kikeh oil (specific quality) per month for 3 years (Jan 2022 - Dec 2024). Contract
included a clause requiring PPIPL to use AMSPL's subsidiary BMRPL for shipment, and another clause
mandating arbitration in Kumbai , India for any disputes. PPIPL claims the 4th and 5th shipments
were below agreed quality standards. AMSPL argues the oil met standards at loading and any
damage during transport is the fault of the new carrier, TSLPL (used instead of BMRPL). PPIPL
withheld payment for both shipments despite a contractual clause prohibiting this during disputes.
The tribunal ruled in favor of AMSPL, ordering PPIPL to pay the outstanding amount (USD
62,320,000) with interest and arbitration costs. The tribunal also ruled that AMSPL is not liable for
any damage caused by the carrier. Now PPIPL has not paid the awarded amount and is challenging
the arbitral award in court. PPIPL claims the arbitrator, Dr. Robert Zane, has a conflict of interest
because his law firm represented AMSPL in a prior case (over 3 years ago).

The counsel seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.

Your lordship, the first submission is : Whether the present application for setting aside
the arbitral award is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court?
Issue 2nd is : Whether the arbitral award dated 30.11.2023 as given by the Hon’ble Arbitral
Tribunal should be set aside? , which counsel would be establishing on 2 grounds,
First , petitioner has already exhausted the time for filing this application.
Secondly, Whether the grounds for setting aside the award claimed by the petitioner are
justified?
If your lordship has no preliminary query may I proceed with the first submission
much obliged ,

Proceeding with the first submission your lordship ,

Whether the present application for setting aside the arbitral award is maintainable before
this Hon’ble Court?
 Your lordship, The application is not maintainable as per S.34(3) of ACA, which mandates
that any application for setting aside an arbitral award has to be made within three months
from the dates when the arbitral award was passed .
Your lordship , Here, the arbitral award was passed on 30-11-2023. Hence, any application
for setting aside could have only been filed on or before 01.03.2024. There was sufficient
time for the petitioner to enquire into the alleged conduct of the Hon’ble Arbitrator, yet it
did so only after the three months expired .
In , Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 2394
The Supreme Court held that the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) is
strict and cannot be extended.

Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd.,

(2012) 2 SCC 6246: The main question before the court was whether the Board's challenge to the
award was filed within the time limit prescribed by the Act. section 34(3) of the Act specifies that an
application to set aside an arbitral award must be made within three months of receiving the award.
The Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 34(3) is mandatory. The Board's
application to challenge the award was time-barred and hence dismissed. From abovementioned
cases it can be concluded that There is absolutely no justifiable reason or sufficient cause with the
petitioner as to why did they fail to file the application within the stipulated time period. Therefore,
it is respectfully submitted, that the application is not maintainable in the first place, and therefore,
the same should be dismissed.

Your lordship my 2nd submission: Whether the arbitral award dated 30.11.2023 as given by the
Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal should be set aside? Will revolve on two averment ;

2(a) petitioner has already exhausted the time for filing this application,
As per S.34(3) of ACA, which mandates that any application for setting aside an arbitral
award has to be made within three months from the dates when the arbitral award was
passed.• Here, the arbitral award was passed on 30.11.20237, hence, any application for setting
aside could have only been filed on or before 01.03.2024.• There was sufficient time for the
petitioner to enquire into the alleged conduct of the Hon’ble Arbitrator, yet it did so only after the
three months expired.• There is absolutely no justifiable reason or sufficient cause with the
petitioner as to why did they fail to file the application within the stipulated time period
• Datar Switchgears Ltd. v. Tata Finance Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 1518 In this case, the Supreme
Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the
grounds of delay . The Court held that the delay in filing the petition was unreasonable and un-
explained , and therefore, the petition was dismissed.

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 2679: In this case, the
Supreme Court reiterated that courts should be cautious in condoning delays in filing petitions under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.• The Court emphasized that petitioners
must provide sufficient reasons for the delay, failing which the petition may be dismissed. Therefore,
it is humbly submitted that there is no ground for setting aside arbitral award passed by arbitral
tribunal and hence, application should be dismissed.
2(b) Whether the grounds for setting aside the award claimed by the petitioner are
justified?

It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner has raised absolutely frivolous grounds for setting
aside the arbitral award dated 30.11.2023, and none of the same are valid in the eyes of the law.
The S.12, ACA, stipulates the grounds for the challenge of an arbitral award, which are
exhaustive in nature. As per Explanation-1 of the same section, The Fifth Schedule states the
particular grounds which may create justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality
of the arbitrator11. A plain reading of the text of The Fifth Schedule of ACA, specifically, the
Point 23, clearly shows that the maximum time-period in which there must not have been any
professional relationship between an arbitrator and a party is three years12. In the present case,
the Hon’ble Arbitrator Dr. Robert Zane’s law firm represented AMSPL before Indica
Commercial Court on 22nd April 2019, whereas, he was appointed as an arbitrator in August
2022. Thus, at least four additional months had already lapsed after the completion of the
necessary period of three years, in which Dr. Zane could not have been appointed as an
arbitrator in the present case. Likewise, the professional relationship, if any, between Dr. Zane
and Mr. Daniel Hardman (Legal Counsel for AMSPL) also does not fall within any category
of grounds of challenge as per The Fifth Schedule. Therefore, there are absolutely no
reasonable grounds for setting aside the arbitral award dated 30.11.2023, and the constitution
of the Hon’ble Arbitration Tribunal is completely legitimate in the eyes of the law.