SUBMITTED BY-

VIPUL KHANDELWAL
ROLL NO. A-16
1
B.A.LLB (SEM -X)
 SYNOPSIS

MODELS OF ARBITARTION AGREEMENT

S.NO. MODELS Page No.

American Arbitration Association/ International Centre

1. 3
for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR)

German Institution of Arbitration (DIS)

2. 7

International Chamber of Commerce

3. 11

Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC)

4. 15

Australian Center for International Arbitration

5. 19

JUDICIAL REMEDIES

S.NO. LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS Page No.

RV Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Ajay Kumar Dixit and Others

6. (2019) 23

Mother Boon Foods Pvt Ltd Vs. Mindscape One Marketing

7. Pvt Ltd. 25

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Narbheram Power and Steel

8. 26
Pvt Ltd

9. Ameet Lalchand Shah & Ors. V. Rishabh Enterprises & Anr 29

Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr. v. Union

10. 30
of India & Ors

2
 AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION/
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ConsultAdd Incorporation,
5215 North O'Connor Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ……………… Party No. 1

Vs.

Zioqu Incorporation,
2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220 ……………… Party No. 2

PROCEDURAL STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties have entered this procedural stipulation, which has been approved in the form of
an order by the arbitrator, to govern an arbitration of a dispute arising under a contract between
ConsultAdd Inc. located at 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard Irving, TC 75039 and Zioqu Inc
located at 2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220. The dispute arises out of and
is governed by a contract agreement between the Parties, last signed and as of the date of June
13th, 2020, that contains a dispute resolution procedure requiring arbitration of all dispute. The
original contract detailing the agreement is attached as ANNEXURE- I.

1. Brief Background: ConsultAdd Inc. and Zioqu Inc. entered into a Master Consulting/
Development Agreement dated June 13th, 2020. The purpose of the agreement is to set
forth the terms and conditions under which Consultants will perform consulting
services for client.

3
2. Governing law: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or
the breach thereof, shall be determined by arbitration administered by the International
Centre for Dispute Resolution in accordance with its International Arbitration Rules.
3. Arbitrator: In the event of a dispute between the parties over the execution of the
attached contract, the parties will waive their rights to litigate these issues in Court and
instead will resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The parties have agreed
to submit these claims to Adam Powers, Esq as sole and final arbitrator in this matter.
4. Place of Arbitration: The place of Arbitration shall be Atlanta, Fulton County, State
of Georgia, United States of America.
5. Language(s) of Arbitration: The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in either
French or English language. Use of any third language is forbidden provided that either
party may submit testimony or documentary evidence in any language if it furnishes,
upon the request of the other party, a translation into English/ French language of any
such testimony or documentary evidence.
6. Background documents for the Arbitrator: The parties shall provide the Arbitrator
with copies of the Contract between the parties, including any change order,
amendment contract, and of any plans or specifications relevant to the dispute on or
before October 10th, 2021.
7. Statements of claims and answering statements: ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve
a statement of claim on or before October 12th, 2021. Zioqu Inc. shall file and serve its
answering statement of claim on or before November 11th, 2021. If Zioqu Inc. files a
counterclaim, ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve its answering statement on or before
December 10th, 2021.
8. Production of documents: On or before, December 20th, 2021, the parties shall serve
upon each other any requests for production of documents they deem relevant, filing a
copy of the requests with the Arbitrator. Any objections to requests for production of
documents will be filed and served on or before Jan 1st, 2021. All documents requested
which have not been the subject of an Order denying the request shall be produced by
the parties on or before Jan 10th, 2021. The parties shall produce a list identifying by
name, employer and address any witnesses the party intends to present at the hearing,
together with a statement of the topics of anticipated testimony for each witness by Jan
30th, 2021, with a copy to the arbitrator. The parties shall exchange a list of exhibits,
with a copy to the arbitrator, by Feb 4th, 2021.

4
9. Expert reports: The parties shall produce to the other party any existing reports (or, in
the absence of a formal report, a summary of the expert opinion) of expert witnesses
relevant to the matters in dispute on or before the Feb 10th, 2021. Expert reports
prepared in opposition to or responding to expert reports shall be produced on or before
Feb 16th, 2021.
10. Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearings: The parties shall hold a pre-hearing
conference by telephone on Feb 21st, 2021 at 10:00 AM EST. The hearing in this matter
shall be held on Feb 25th , 2021. Hearings will be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., unless
otherwise agreed by the parties and the Arbitrator. Hearings will be held at a site to be
agreed upon by the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a site, the arbitrator shall
select the site.
11. Explanation of award: The parties have requested that the Arbitrator provide a written
explanation of the award.
12. Stenographic record: Neither party intends to obtain a stenographic record of the
proceeding.
13. Rules of evidence: At any time during the proceedings, the arbitrator may order the
parties to produce documents, exhibits, or other evidence it deems necessary or
appropriate. Unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, the tribunal shall apply
Article 24.
14. Payment of Arbitrator: The parties agree that the Arbitrator shall be paid $350 per
hour, including travel time, together with mileage, long distance telephone calls,
photocopying costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. The Arbitrator has estimated a
bill for his services in the amount of $100, to be shared equally by the parties in the first
instance, subject to the authority of the Arbitrator to apportion fees, expenses and
compensation among the parties pursuant to AAA R-44(c). The parties shall pay the
estimated fee promptly and the Arbitrator shall deposit it in his attorney’s IOLTA
account, to be drawn upon as earned. The parties shall pay additional estimated fees in
similar fashion as determined by the Arbitrator whenever the Arbitrator in good faith
determines that the fees paid are not likely to cover the anticipated bills for Arbitrator’s
services and reimbursable costs. All fees and costs shall be current as of the
commencement of hearing days, and all fees and costs shall be paid in full prior to
issuance of the final award by the Arbitrator.
15. Means of filing and service: The parties and the Arbitrator stipulate those documents
and correspondence may be served and filed by fax, email or regular mail, and the
5
 award shall be served in accordance with the American law. The parties are encouraged
to provide the Arbitrator with electronic copies of all pleadings, motions and briefs.
16. Interim Relief: A request by a party to a court of competent jurisdiction for interim
measures necessary to preserve the party’s rights, including pre-arbitration attachments
or injunctions, shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this agreement to
arbitrate.

Acknowledgement of Arbitration

The parties understand that this Agreement contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing
this document, each party understands that it will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning
any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves
a question of Constitutional or civil rights. Instead, the parties agree to submit any such
dispute to an impartial arbitrator or arbitrators.

DATED at Atlanta, State of Georgia this 13th day of June, 2021.

ARBITRATOR: Adam Powers, Esq

STIPULATED BY: - ConsultAdd Incorporation

and

Zioqu Incorporation

6
 GERMAN INSTITUTION OF ARBITRATION (DIS)

ConsultAdd Incorporation,
5215 North O'Connor Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ……………… Party No. 1

Vs.

Zioqu Incorporation,
2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220 ……………… Party No. 2

PROCEDURAL STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties have entered this procedural stipulation, which has been approved in the form of
an order by the arbitrator, to govern an arbitration of a dispute arising under a contract between
ConsultAdd Inc. located at 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard Irving, TC 75039 and Zioqu Inc
located at 2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220. The dispute arises out of and
is governed by a contract agreement between the Parties, last signed and as of the date of June
13th, 2020, that contains a dispute resolution procedure requiring arbitration of all dispute. The
original contract detailing the agreement is attached as ANNEXURE- I.

1. Brief Background: ConsultAdd Inc. and Zioqu Inc. entered into a Master Consulting/
Development Agreement dated June 13th, 2020. The purpose of the agreement is to set
forth the terms and conditions under which Consultants will perform consulting
services for client.
2. Governing law: “All disputes arising in connection with this contract or its validity
shall be finally settled in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the German
Institution of Arbitration (DIS) without recourse to the ordinary courts of law.
3. Arbitrator: In the event of a dispute between the parties over the execution of the
attached contract, the parties will waive their rights to litigate these issues in Court and
instead will resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The parties have agreed
to submit these claims to Adam Powers, Esq as sole and final arbitrator in this matter.
4. Place of Arbitration: The place of Arbitration shall be Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany
10967.

7
5. Language(s) of Arbitration: The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in either
German or English language. Use of any third language is forbidden provided that
either party may submit testimony or documentary evidence in any language if it
furnishes, upon the request of the other party, a translation into English/ German
language of any such testimony or documentary evidence.
6. Background documents for the Arbitrator: The parties shall provide the Arbitrator
with copies of the Contract between the parties, including any change order,
amendment contract, and of any plans or specifications relevant to the dispute on or
before October 10th, 2021.
7. Statements of claims and answering statements: ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve
a statement of claim on or before October 12th, 2021. Zioqu Inc. shall file and serve its
answering statement of claim on or before November 11th, 2021. If Zioqu Inc. files a
counterclaim, ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve its answering statement on or before
December 10th, 2021.
8. Production of documents: On or before, December 20th, 2021, the parties shall serve
upon each other any requests for production of documents they deem relevant, filing a
copy of the requests with the Arbitrator. Any objections to requests for production of
documents will be filed and served on or before Jan 1st, 2021. All documents requested
which have not been the subject of an Order denying the request shall be produced by
the parties on or before Jan 10th, 2021. The parties shall produce a list identifying by
name, employer and address any witnesses the party intends to present at the hearing,
together with a statement of the topics of anticipated testimony for each witness by Jan
30th, 2021, with a copy to the arbitrator. The parties shall exchange a list of exhibits,
with a copy to the arbitrator, by Feb 4th, 2021.
9. Expert reports: The parties shall produce to the other party any existing reports (or, in
the absence of a formal report, a summary of the expert opinion) of expert witnesses
relevant to the matters in dispute on or before the Feb 10th, 2021. Expert reports
prepared in opposition to or responding to expert reports shall be produced on or before
Feb 16th, 2021.
10. Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearings: The parties shall hold a pre-hearing
conference by telephone on Feb 21st, 2021 at 10:00 AM CET. The hearing in this matter
shall be held on Feb 25th , 2021. Hearings will be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., unless
otherwise agreed by the parties and the Arbitrator. Hearings will be held at a site to be

8
 agreed upon by the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a site, the arbitrator shall
select the site.
11. Explanation of award: The parties have requested that the Arbitrator provide a written
explanation of the award.
12. Stenographic record: Neither party intends to obtain a stenographic record of the
proceeding.
13. Rules of evidence: At any time during the proceedings, the arbitrator may order the
parties to produce documents, exhibits, or other evidence it deems necessary or
appropriate..
14. Payment of Arbitrator: The parties agree that the Arbitrator shall be paid $350 per
hour, including travel time, together with mileage, long distance telephone calls,
photocopying costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. The Arbitrator has estimated a
bill for his services in the amount of $100, to be shared equally by the parties in the first
instance, subject to the authority of the Arbitrator to apportion fees, expenses and
compensation among the parties. The parties shall pay the estimated fee promptly and
the Arbitrator shall deposit it in his attorney’s IOLTA account, to be drawn upon as
earned. The parties shall pay additional estimated fees in similar fashion as determined
by the Arbitrator whenever the Arbitrator in good faith determines that the fees paid are
not likely to cover the anticipated bills for Arbitrator’s services and reimbursable costs.
All fees and costs shall be current as of the commencement of hearing days, and all fees
and costs shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the final award by the Arbitrator.
15. Means of filing and service: The parties and the Arbitrator stipulate those documents
and correspondence may be served and filed by fax, email or regular mail, and the
award shall be served in accordance with the American law. The parties are encouraged
to provide the Arbitrator with electronic copies of all pleadings, motions and briefs.
16. Interim Relief: A request by a party to a court of competent jurisdiction for interim
measures necessary to preserve the party’s rights, including pre-arbitration attachments
or injunctions, shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this agreement to
arbitrate.

9
Acknowledgement of Arbitration

The parties understand that this Agreement contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing
this document, each party understands that it will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning
any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves
a question of Constitutional or civil rights. Instead, the parties agree to submit any such
dispute to an impartial arbitrator or arbitrators.

DATED at Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany this 13th day of June, 2021.

ARBITRATOR: Adam Powers, Esq

STIPULATED BY: - ConsultAdd Incorporation

and

Zioqu Incorporation

10
 INTRERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (ICC)

ConsultAdd Incorporation,
5215 North O'Connor Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ……………… Party No. 1

Vs.

Zioqu Incorporation,
2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220 ……………… Party No. 2

PROCEDURAL STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties have entered this procedural stipulation, which has been approved in the form of
an order by the arbitrator, to govern an arbitration of a dispute arising under a contract between
ConsultAdd Inc. located at 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard Irving, TC 75039 and Zioqu Inc
located at 2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220. The dispute arises out of and
is governed by a contract agreement between the Parties, last signed and as of the date of June
13th, 2020, that contains a dispute resolution procedure requiring arbitration of all dispute. The
original contract detailing the agreement is attached as ANNEXURE- I.

1. Brief Background: ConsultAdd Inc. and Zioqu Inc. entered into a Master Consulting/
Development Agreement dated June 13th, 2020. The purpose of the agreement is to set
forth the terms and conditions under which Consultants will perform consulting
services for client.
2. Governing law: All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract
shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of
Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The
emergency Arbitrator Provisions shall not apply.
a. The arbitration agreement shall be contained either in a document signed by the
parties or in an exchange of letters, telefaxes, telegrams or other means of
telecommunication which provide a record of the agreement.
b. The form requirement of sub section 1 shall be deemed to have been complied
with if the arbitration agreement is contained in a document delivered from one

11
 party to the other party or by a third party to both parties and - if no objection
was raised in good time - the contents of such document are considered to be
part of the contract in accordance with common usage.
3. Arbitrator: In the event of a dispute between the parties over the execution of the
attached contract, the parties will waive their rights to litigate these issues in Court and
instead will resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The parties have agreed
to submit these claims to Adam Powers, Esq as sole and final arbitrator in this matter.
4. Place of Arbitration: The place of Arbitration shall be Atlanta, Fulton County, State
of Georgia, United States of America.
5. Language(s) of Arbitration: The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in either
French or English language. Use of any third language is forbidden provided that either
party may submit testimony or documentary evidence in any language if it furnishes,
upon the request of the other party, a translation into English/ French language of any
such testimony or documentary evidence.
6. Background documents for the Arbitrator: The parties shall provide the Arbitrator
with copies of the Contract between the parties, including any change order,
amendment contract, and of any plans or specifications relevant to the dispute on or
before October 10th, 2021.
7. Statements of claims and answering statements: ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve
a statement of claim on or before October 12th, 2021. Zioqu Inc. shall file and serve its
answering statement of claim on or before November 11th, 2021. If Zioqu Inc. files a
counterclaim, ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve its answering statement on or before
December 10th, 2021.
8. Production of documents: On or before, December 20th, 2021, the parties shall serve
upon each other any requests for production of documents they deem relevant, filing a
copy of the requests with the Arbitrator. Any objections to requests for production of
documents will be filed and served on or before Jan 1st, 2021. All documents requested
which have not been the subject of an Order denying the request shall be produced by
the parties on or before Jan 10th, 2021. The parties shall produce a list identifying by
name, employer and address any witnesses the party intends to present at the hearing,
together with a statement of the topics of anticipated testimony for each witness by Jan
30th, 2021, with a copy to the arbitrator. The parties shall exchange a list of exhibits,
with a copy to the arbitrator, by Feb 4th, 2021.

12
9. Expert reports: The parties shall produce to the other party any existing reports (or, in
the absence of a formal report, a summary of the expert opinion) of expert witnesses
relevant to the matters in dispute on or before the Feb 10th, 2021. Expert reports
prepared in opposition to or responding to expert reports shall be produced on or before
Feb 16th, 2021.
10. Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearings: The parties shall hold a pre-hearing
conference by telephone on Feb 21st, 2021 at 10:00 AM CET. The hearing in this matter
shall be held on Feb 25th , 2021. Hearings will be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., unless
otherwise agreed by the parties and the Arbitrator. Hearings will be held at a site to be
agreed upon by the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a site, the arbitrator shall
select the site.
11. Explanation of award: The parties have requested that the Arbitrator provide a written
explanation of the award.
12. Stenographic record: Neither party intends to obtain a stenographic record of the
proceeding.
13. Rules of evidence: At any time during the proceedings, the arbitrator may order the
parties to produce documents, exhibits, or other evidence it deems necessary or
appropriate..
14. Payment of Arbitrator: The parties agree that the Arbitrator shall be paid $350 per
hour, including travel time, together with mileage, long distance telephone calls,
photocopying costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. The Arbitrator has estimated a
bill for his services in the amount of $100, to be shared equally by the parties in the first
instance, subject to the authority of the Arbitrator to apportion fees, expenses and
compensation among the parties. The parties shall pay the estimated fee promptly and
the Arbitrator shall deposit it in his attorney’s IOLTA account, to be drawn upon as
earned. The parties shall pay additional estimated fees in similar fashion as determined
by the Arbitrator whenever the Arbitrator in good faith determines that the fees paid are
not likely to cover the anticipated bills for Arbitrator’s services and reimbursable costs.
All fees and costs shall be current as of the commencement of hearing days, and all fees
and costs shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the final award by the Arbitrator.
15. Means of filing and service: The parties and the Arbitrator stipulate those documents
and correspondence may be served and filed by fax, email or regular mail, and the
award shall be served in accordance with the American law. The parties are encouraged
to provide the Arbitrator with electronic copies of all pleadings, motions and briefs.
13
16. Interim Relief: A request by a party to a court of competent jurisdiction for interim
measures necessary to preserve the party’s rights, including pre-arbitration attachments
or injunctions, shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this agreement to
arbitrate.

Acknowledgement of Arbitration

The parties understand that this Agreement contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing
this document, each party understands that it will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning
any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves
a question of Constitutional or civil rights. Instead, the parties agree to submit any such
dispute to an impartial arbitrator or arbitrators.

DATED at Atlanta, State of Georgia this 13th day of June, 2021.

ARBITRATOR: Adam Powers, Esq

STIPULATED BY: - ConsultAdd Incorporation

and

Zioqu Incorporation

14
 DUBAI INTRERNATIONAL ARBITARTAION CENTER
(DIAC)

ConsultAdd Incorporation,
5215 North O'Connor Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ……………… Party No. 1

Vs.

Zioqu Incorporation,
2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220 ……………… Party No. 2

PROCEDURAL STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties have entered this procedural stipulation, which has been approved in the form of
an order by the arbitrator, to govern an arbitration of a dispute arising under a contract between
ConsultAdd Inc. located at 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard Irving, TC 75039 and Zioqu Inc
located at 2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220. The dispute arises out of and
is governed by a contract agreement between the Parties, last signed and as of the date of June
13th, 2020, that contains a dispute resolution procedure requiring arbitration of all dispute. The
original contract detailing the agreement is attached as ANNEXURE- I.

1. Brief Background: ConsultAdd Inc. and Zioqu Inc. entered into a Master Consulting/
Development Agreement dated June 13th, 2020. The purpose of the agreement is to set
forth the terms and conditions under which Consultants will perform consulting
services for client.
2. Governing law: Any dispute arising out of the formation, performance, interpretation,
nullification, termination or invalidation of this contract or arising therefrom or related
thereto in any manner whatsoever, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the
provisions set forth under the DIAC Arbitration Rules (“the Rules”), by one or more
arbitrators appointed in compliance with the Rules.”
3. Arbitrator: In the event of a dispute between the parties over the execution of the
attached contract, the parties will waive their rights to litigate these issues in Court and
instead will resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The parties have agreed
to submit these claims to Adam Powers, Esq as sole and final arbitrator in this matter.
15
4. Place of Arbitration: The place of Arbitration shall be Barsha Heights, Dubai.
5. Language(s) of Arbitration: The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in either
French or English language. Use of any third language is forbidden provided that either
party may submit testimony or documentary evidence in any language if it furnishes,
upon the request of the other party, a translation into English/ French language of any
such testimony or documentary evidence.
6. Background documents for the Arbitrator: The parties shall provide the Arbitrator
with copies of the Contract between the parties, including any change order,
amendment contract, and of any plans or specifications relevant to the dispute on or
before October 10th, 2021.
7. Statements of claims and answering statements: ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve
a statement of claim on or before October 12th, 2021. Zioqu Inc. shall file and serve its
answering statement of claim on or before November 11th, 2021. If Zioqu Inc. files a
counterclaim, ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve its answering statement on or before
December 10th, 2021.
8. Production of documents: On or before, December 20th, 2021, the parties shall serve
upon each other any requests for production of documents they deem relevant, filing a
copy of the requests with the Arbitrator. Any objections to requests for production of
documents will be filed and served on or before Jan 1st, 2021. All documents requested
which have not been the subject of an Order denying the request shall be produced by
the parties on or before Jan 10th, 2021. The parties shall produce a list identifying by
name, employer and address any witnesses the party intends to present at the hearing,
together with a statement of the topics of anticipated testimony for each witness by Jan
30th, 2021, with a copy to the arbitrator. The parties shall exchange a list of exhibits,
with a copy to the arbitrator, by Feb 4th, 2021.
9. Expert reports: The parties shall produce to the other party any existing reports (or, in
the absence of a formal report, a summary of the expert opinion) of expert witnesses
relevant to the matters in dispute on or before the Feb 10th, 2021. Expert reports
prepared in opposition to or responding to expert reports shall be produced on or before
Feb 16th, 2021.
10. Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearings: The parties shall hold a pre-hearing
conference by telephone on Feb 21st, 2021 at 10:00 AM CET. The hearing in this matter
shall be held on Feb 25th , 2021. Hearings will be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., unless
otherwise agreed by the parties and the Arbitrator. Hearings will be held at a site to be
16
 agreed upon by the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a site, the arbitrator shall
select the site.
11. Explanation of award: The parties have requested that the Arbitrator provide a written
explanation of the award.
12. Stenographic record: Neither party intends to obtain a stenographic record of the
proceeding.
13. Rules of evidence: At any time during the proceedings, the arbitrator may order the
parties to produce documents, exhibits, or other evidence it deems necessary or
appropriate..
14. Payment of Arbitrator: The parties agree that the Arbitrator shall be paid $350 per
hour, including travel time, together with mileage, long distance telephone calls,
photocopying costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. The Arbitrator has estimated a
bill for his services in the amount of $100, to be shared equally by the parties in the first
instance, subject to the authority of the Arbitrator to apportion fees, expenses and
compensation among the parties. The parties shall pay the estimated fee promptly and
the Arbitrator shall deposit it in his attorney’s IOLTA account, to be drawn upon as
earned. The parties shall pay additional estimated fees in similar fashion as determined
by the Arbitrator whenever the Arbitrator in good faith determines that the fees paid are
not likely to cover the anticipated bills for Arbitrator’s services and reimbursable costs.
All fees and costs shall be current as of the commencement of hearing days, and all fees
and costs shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the final award by the Arbitrator.
15. Means of filing and service: The parties and the Arbitrator stipulate those documents
and correspondence may be served and filed by fax, email or regular mail, and the
award shall be served in accordance with the American law. The parties are encouraged
to provide the Arbitrator with electronic copies of all pleadings, motions and briefs.
16. Interim Relief: A request by a party to a court of competent jurisdiction for interim
measures necessary to preserve the party’s rights, including pre-arbitration attachments
or injunctions, shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this agreement to
arbitrate.

17
Acknowledgement of Arbitration

The parties understand that this Agreement contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing
this document, each party understands that it will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning
any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves
a question of Constitutional or civil rights. Instead, the parties agree to submit any such
dispute to an impartial arbitrator or arbitrators.

DATED at Barsha Heights, Dubai this 13th day of June, 2021.

ARBITRATOR: Adam Powers, Esq

STIPULATED BY: - ConsultAdd Incorporation

and

Zioqu Incorporation

18
 AUSTRALIAN CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

ConsultAdd Incorporation,
5215 North O'Connor Boulevard Irving, TX 75039 ……………… Party No. 1

Vs.

Zioqu Incorporation,
2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220 ……………… Party No. 2

PROCEDURAL STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties have entered this procedural stipulation, which has been approved in the form of
an order by the arbitrator, to govern an arbitration of a dispute arising under a contract between
ConsultAdd Inc. located at 5215 North O’Connor Boulevard Irving, TC 75039 and Zioqu Inc
located at 2351 W Northwest Hwy, Suite 2235, Dallas, TX 75220. The dispute arises out of and
is governed by a contract agreement between the Parties, last signed and as of the date of June
13th, 2020, that contains a dispute resolution procedure requiring arbitration of all dispute. The
original contract detailing the agreement is attached as ANNEXURE- I.

1. Brief Background: ConsultAdd Inc. and Zioqu Inc. entered into a Master Consulting/
Development Agreement dated June 13th, 2020. The purpose of the agreement is to set
forth the terms and conditions under which Consultants will perform consulting
services for client.
2. Governing law: Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of, relating to or in
connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity
or termination, shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with
the ACICA Arbitration Rules. The seat of arbitration shall be Sydney, Australia. The
language of the arbitration shall be English.
3. Arbitrator: In the event of a dispute between the parties over the execution of the
attached contract, the parties will waive their rights to litigate these issues in Court and
instead will resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The parties have agreed
to submit these claims to Adam Powers, Esq as sole and final arbitrator in this matter.
19
4. Place of Arbitration: The place of Arbitration shall be Atlanta, Fulton County, State
of Georgia, United States of America.
5. Language(s) of Arbitration: The Arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in either
French or English language. Use of any third language is forbidden provided that either
party may submit testimony or documentary evidence in any language if it furnishes,
upon the request of the other party, a translation into English/ French language of any
such testimony or documentary evidence.
6. Background documents for the Arbitrator: The parties shall provide the Arbitrator
with copies of the Contract between the parties, including any change order,
amendment contract, and of any plans or specifications relevant to the dispute on or
before October 10th, 2021.
7. Statements of claims and answering statements: ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve
a statement of claim on or before October 12th, 2021. Zioqu Inc. shall file and serve its
answering statement of claim on or before November 11th, 2021. If Zioqu Inc. files a
counterclaim, ConsultAdd Inc. shall file and serve its answering statement on or before
December 10th, 2021.
8. Production of documents: On or before, December 20th, 2021, the parties shall serve
upon each other any requests for production of documents they deem relevant, filing a
copy of the requests with the Arbitrator. Any objections to requests for production of
documents will be filed and served on or before Jan 1st, 2021. All documents requested
which have not been the subject of an Order denying the request shall be produced by
the parties on or before Jan 10th, 2021. The parties shall produce a list identifying by
name, employer and address any witnesses the party intends to present at the hearing,
together with a statement of the topics of anticipated testimony for each witness by Jan
30th, 2021, with a copy to the arbitrator. The parties shall exchange a list of exhibits,
with a copy to the arbitrator, by Feb 4th, 2021.
9. Expert reports: The parties shall produce to the other party any existing reports (or, in
the absence of a formal report, a summary of the expert opinion) of expert witnesses
relevant to the matters in dispute on or before the Feb 10th, 2021. Expert reports
prepared in opposition to or responding to expert reports shall be produced on or before
Feb 16th, 2021.
10. Pre-Hearing Conference and Hearings: The parties shall hold a pre-hearing
conference by telephone on Feb 21st, 2021 at 10:00 AM CET. The hearing in this matter
shall be held on Feb 25th , 2021. Hearings will be from 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., unless
20
 otherwise agreed by the parties and the Arbitrator. Hearings will be held at a site to be
agreed upon by the parties. If the parties cannot agree upon a site, the arbitrator shall
select the site.
11. Explanation of award: The parties have requested that the Arbitrator provide a written
explanation of the award.
12. Stenographic record: Neither party intends to obtain a stenographic record of the
proceeding.
13. Rules of evidence: At any time during the proceedings, the arbitrator may order the
parties to produce documents, exhibits, or other evidence it deems necessary or
appropriate..
14. Payment of Arbitrator: The parties agree that the Arbitrator shall be paid $350 per
hour, including travel time, together with mileage, long distance telephone calls,
photocopying costs and other out-of-pocket expenses. The Arbitrator has estimated a
bill for his services in the amount of $100, to be shared equally by the parties in the first
instance, subject to the authority of the Arbitrator to apportion fees, expenses and
compensation among the parties. The parties shall pay the estimated fee promptly and
the Arbitrator shall deposit it in his attorney’s IOLTA account, to be drawn upon as
earned. The parties shall pay additional estimated fees in similar fashion as determined
by the Arbitrator whenever the Arbitrator in good faith determines that the fees paid are
not likely to cover the anticipated bills for Arbitrator’s services and reimbursable costs.
All fees and costs shall be current as of the commencement of hearing days, and all fees
and costs shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the final award by the Arbitrator.
15. Means of filing and service: The parties and the Arbitrator stipulate those documents
and correspondence may be served and filed by fax, email or regular mail, and the
award shall be served in accordance with the American law. The parties are encouraged
to provide the Arbitrator with electronic copies of all pleadings, motions and briefs.
16. Interim Relief: A request by a party to a court of competent jurisdiction for interim
measures necessary to preserve the party’s rights, including pre-arbitration attachments
or injunctions, shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this agreement to
arbitrate.

21
Acknowledgement of Arbitration

The parties understand that this Agreement contains an agreement to arbitrate. After signing
this document, each party understands that it will not be able to bring a lawsuit concerning
any dispute that may arise which is covered by the arbitration agreement, unless it involves
a question of Constitutional or civil rights. Instead, the parties agree to submit any such
dispute to an impartial arbitrator or arbitrators.

DATED at Atlanta, State of Georgia this 13th day of June, 2021.

ARBITRATOR: Adam Powers, Esq

STIPULATED BY: - ConsultAdd Incorporation

and

Zioqu Incorporation

22
 JUDICIAL REMEDIES

I. RV Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. Ajay Kumar Dixit and Others

(2019)
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Plaintiff company was indulged in the business of providing the services related to
telecommunication, information technology, cell-phones etc. Due to the certain issues which
arose between the employees and the company, the employees i.e. the defendants left their job
in the plaintiff company without giving any justified reason or proper notice. All the defendants
held senior positions in the plaintiff company due to which they had access to the highly
sensitive and important information, leakage of which can adversely affect the plaintiff
company. After leaving the plaintiff company, defendants breached their employment contract
and indulged in acts which were contrary to the terms of their employment. For this breach
plaintiff filed suit against the defendant. Defendant no.5 was the company in which defendant
no. 1 hold the position of CEO. It was alleged that defendant no. 1 may have used some
sensitive information related to the business of plaintiff company to benefit defendant no. 5.

ISSUE:

Whether an arbitration agreement will be binding on non-signatory parties?

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

Defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 said that disputed shall be submitted to the arbitral tribunal due to the
arbitration clause in the contract and filed application under section 8 of The Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter the arbitral tribunal. As far as defendant no. 3 and
defendant no. 5 are concerned, they were foreign parties which means they were not bound by
the arbitration clause but they were no against referring the matter to the arbitral tribunal.

With respect to plaintiff, its contention was that matter cannot be referred to arbitral tribunal
because it involved defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 5 which are not the parties to the
arbitration agreement.

23
DECISION OF THE COURT:

Before deciding on the matter for which the suit is filed, court decides to answer on the issue
of arbitration agreement. Court said that that there is nothing in the act or under section 8 of
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which prevent non signatories from resorting to the
option of submitting the dispute to the arbitral tribunal. Court quoting section 8 of The
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 said that the only condition for given under this section,
which prevents the dispute to be referred to the arbitral tribunal is that arbitration agreement is
invalid. This means that if there is an arbitration agreement and parties are non-signatories to
the agreement but related indirectly in some way to the agreement, then also they can use the
remedy of referring the matter to arbitral tribunal provided the arbitration agreement is valid.

Also, the point here to be noted is that defendant no.3 and defendant no.5 who were non-
signatories did not object against the matter to be refer to the arbitral tribunal. Court said that
in some exceptional circumstances dispute of non-signatories’ parties without the prior consent
can be referred to arbitral tribunal but in this case court has to examine the relationship of the
parties to the agreement and also have to see that whether referring the dispute to the arbitration
procedure will fulfil the purpose of serving the justice. In the present case court finally decided
to refer the matter to the arbitral tribunal.

ANALYSIS

The decision was very well delivered by the Delhi High Court and it is a commendable step to
not involve a non-signatory or third party to Arbitration without its consent but can do so in
exceptional cases. There needs to be either a direct relationship to the signatory party of the
Arbitration Agreement, or commonality of the subject matter, or composite transactions in the
agreement between the parties.

24
 II. Mother Boon Foods Pvt Ltd Vs. Mindscape One
Marketing Pvt Ltd.
FACTS:

The respondent, a bread manufacturing company, entered into a manufacturing agreement with
petitioner, Mother Boon on July 25, 2012. Under this agreement, the Petitioner was appointed
as a contract manufacturer to manufacture and package bread as specified by the respondent.
In July 2013 commercial production was commenced. The respondent was to take quality
control measures. Disputes arose between the parties which led to the termination of the
agreement. The respondent initiated the arbitration proceeding and appointed the arbitral
tribunal. The petitioner did not participate in the arbitration. The arbitral award rendered in this
proceeding was challenged by the petitioner under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996.

ISSUE:
Whether an oral demand or agreement can supersede a written agreement in an arbitration?

DECISION OF THE COURT:

The court examined the arbitration clause in order to note that the clause indicates the
appointment of a sole arbitrator by the respondent and raised objection on the basis of the three-
member tribunal constituted by the respondent. The court ruled that in case the respondent by
appointing a three-member tribunal wanted to adopt a fair attitude then this should have been
done with the consent of the petitioner. According to the 1996 act, an arbitration agreement
should be in writing, and since in this case, the agreement was in writing so it could not have
surpassed an oral agreement or demand. The court also acknowledged the possibility that the
petitioner may have agreed on a three-member tribunal orally. However, the procedure
assumed by the respondent was held to be impermissible. Thus the court ruled that an oral
agreement or demand cannot supersede a written agreement. The award rendered was set aside
on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal appointed was not permissible in accordance with the
agreement between the parties.

ANALYSIS

The decision of the Hon’ble Court is very well delivered. The arbitration agreement must be
in writing and cannot and should not surpass an oral agreement or demand

25
 III. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Narbheram Power and Steel
Pvt Ltd
FACTS:
Narbheram Power and Steel Pvt Ltd (“NPSL/ Company”) and the Insurer had entered into a
fire industrial all risk policy, whereby the latter had agreed to indemnify the former against
losses caused in respect of the said factory of the Company. In October 2013, there was a
cyclone which affected large parts of Odisha including the factory of NPSL. NPSL estimated
damages to the tune of Rs 3,93,36,224 and intimated the insurer which accordingly appointed
a surveyor. Based on the surveyor report, NPSL requested the Insurer to settle the claim. As
the claim was not settled by the Insurer, NPSL invoked the arbitration agreement. The Insurer
repudiated the claim and also declined to refer to arbitration. NPSL, thereafter, filed an
application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court
heard the matter and appointed a retired judge of the High Court as arbitrator. The Insurer
appealed against the order of the High Court.

ARGUMENTS:

The Insurer argued that the relief for appointment of an arbitrator cannot be granted by the
Court for two reasons. First, as per part two of clause 13 of the policy, “no difference or dispute
shall be referable to arbitration, as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not
accepted liability under or in respect of this policy”. The Insurer pleaded that it was a case of
denial of liability and hence cannot be referred to arbitration, as per part two of clause 13 of
the agreement. Second, the Insurer argued that the High Court had adopted an erroneous
approach in the interpretation of the said clause. The clauses should be interpreted in the exact
terms as provided in the contract and no artificial far-fetched meaning should be given to them.

NPSL, however, argued that the letter of repudiation does not relate to denial of liability, but,
in fact, amounts to denial of claim that pertains to quantum. It seeks to draw a distinction
between liability and refusal of claim not having been substantiated.

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court, reversing the order of the High Court, said that the High Court had
assumed that the second and the third part of clause 13 do not have harmony and, in fact, sound
a discordant note. Referring to the authorities cited by the parties, the Court said that the terms

26
of the contract shall prevail and the parties are bound by the clauses enumerated in the policy
and Court does not transplant any equity to the same by rewriting a clause.

The Court analysed the dispute redressal clause in the policy and observed that once the Insurer
disputes its liability under or in respect of the policy, there can be no reference to arbitrator.
This is contained in the part 2 of clause 13. After analysing part 2 and part 3 of clause 13, the
Court, while refuting the findings of the High Court, held that there is no incongruity between
the two. The part which makes obtaining an award a condition precedent to initiation of any
right against the insurer is generally called as ‘Scott v. Avery clause’.

The Court thereafter dealt with its observation in the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. Case, which
authoritatively covers and supports the objection raised by the insurer about appointment of
the arbitrator. The Supreme Court, in that case, while reversing the judgement of the high
Court, observed as follows:

But in this case on a careful consideration of the matter we have come to the definite conclusion
that the difference which arose between the parties on the company’s repudiation of the claim
made by Respondent 1 was not one to which the arbitration clause applied and hence the
arbitration agreement could not be filed and no arbitrator could be appointed under Section
20 of the Act. Respondent 1 was ill-advised to commence an action under Section 20 instead of
instituting a suit within three months of the date of repudiation to establish the company’s
liability.

Notably, while rejecting the contention of the company, the Court observed that in cases where
the arbitration clause specifically excludes certain circumstances, disputes arising out of such
circumstances cannot be adjudicated by arbitration, and the only remedy available to the
assured is to initiate a civil suit in accordance with law.

In light of the above observation of the Court and the communication between the parties, the
Court opined to the fact that the disputation is nothing but denial of liability, and would
squarely fall within part 2 of clause 13. The Court ruled that the language used in the second
part is absolutely categorical and unequivocal inasmuch it clearly says that no dispute would
be referred to arbitration if the company has disputed or not accepted liability under the policy.

27
The Court also clarified that part 3 of clause 13, which makes obtaining an arbitral award a
condition precedent to initiating a civil suit, would not prevent NPSL from approaching the
court. It ruled that if the Insurer repudiates its liability, then there is no obligation on the assured
to arbitrate as to amount before commencing a suit proceeding. The assured is not required to
initiate two different proceeding, one to be decided by arbitrator and other by the Court. The
Court, therefore, held that the only remedy available to the company would be to initiate a civil
suit for mitigation of the grievances.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court has made a distinction between cases where the insurer has completely
repudiated its liability, and cases where the insurer has not disputed its liability but denied the
claim that pertains to quantum. The position now stands crystal clear. As soon as there is a
denial of liability, the only remedy available to the assured is to initiate a civil suit against the
insurer to establish its liability, and then refer to arbitration under the arbitration agreement to
determine the quantum of claim.

28
 IV. Ameet Lalchand Shah & Ors. V. Rishabh Enterprises

FACTS:

Plaintiff company was indulged in the business of providing the services related to
telecommunication, information technology, cell-phones etc. Due to the certain issues which
arose between the employees and the company, the employees i.e. the defendants left their job
in the plaintiff company without giving any justified reason or proper notice. All the defendants
held senior positions in the plaintiff company due to which they had access to the highly
sensitive and important information, leakage of which can adversely affect the plaintiff
company. After leaving the plaintiff company, defendants breached their employment contract
and indulged in acts which were contrary to the terms of their employment. For this breach
plaintiff filed suit against the defendant. Defendant no.5 was the company in which defendant
no. 1 hold the position of CEO. It was alleged that defendant no. 1 may have used some
sensitive information related to the business of plaintiff company to benefit defendant no. 5.

ISSUE:

Whether an arbitration agreement will be binding on non-signatory parties?

JUDGEMENT

The principle agreement and the agreement for the purchase of the power generating
equipment, and for engineering, installation, and commissioning of the plant contained
arbitration clauses. However, the fourth agreement for the purchase of the photo-voltaic
product for energizing the solar plant did not contain an arbitration clause. The court took the
view that even though there are different agreements involving several parties, these
agreements are interrelated and are in pursuance of a single commercial project. The dispute
between all the parties, under the four agreements, were referred to were common arbitration.

ANALYSIS

The decision was very well delivered by the Delhi High Court and it is a commendable step to
not involve a non-signatory or third party to Arbitration without its consent but can do so in
exceptional cases.

29
 V. Hindustan Construction Company Limited & Anr. v.
Union of India & Ors
FACTS:

The Petitioner, Hindustan Construction Company Limited (HCC), is an engineering company

that specialises in large-scale infrastructure projects. It has worked as a contractor for NHAI,
NHPC, NTPC, and IRCON International.

HCC subsequently had disagreements with these government agencies and government
contractors due to the design of these programs and the associated cost overruns. Several
awards were made in favour of HCC during the subsequent arbitral hearings. Section 34 of the
Act was used to contest these prizes. Invariably, the reward debtors effectively obtained
compulsory stays on the execution proceedings due to the recently inserted Section 87 through
specific appeals to the arbitral awards. HCC's main argument was that this would prolong the
procedure of enforcing an arbitral award and introduce additional obstacles for legitimate
award creditors like HCC.

HCC received a double whammy as a result of this. On the one hand, filing an appeal to the
arbitral award would be considered a contested debt for the IBC, and any petitions submitted
by HCC as an operational creditor would be dismissed as unmaintainable, while on the other
hand, numerous operational creditors who had supplied labour and equipment for certain
ventures were sending demand notices to HCC.

Instead of this, HCC sought to have Section 87 of the Arbitration Act, Section 26 of the 2015
Amendment Act, and some clauses of the IBC declared unconstitutional.

ISSUES:

Whether Section 87 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is constitutionally valid or
not?

JUDGEMENT:

The Supreme Court stated that section 87 was enacted solely to implement the Srikrishna
Committee Report's suggestion to eliminate confusion surrounding the potential applicability
of the Amendment Act. However, the BCCI ruling had already eliminated such uncertainty.
The Supreme Court explained that because the unamended Act did not provide an automatic
hold, Act was merely passed to explain the situation. As a result, section 87 was incompatible

30
with the 2015 Amendment Act's stated goal of making it only effective as of October 23, 2015.
Furthermore, the legislature enacted a manifestly unconstitutional law, lacked proper deciding
principle, and was detrimental to the general interest without appealing to the BCCI ruling,
which had found out the dangers of implementing such a provision. The Supreme Court
concluded with the Petitioner that the addition of section 87 resurrects the problem that the
Amendment tried to address and is therefore unlawful. The Supreme Court, relying on its
decision in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited and Others v. Union of India and
Others, held that the IBC was not intended to be a rehabilitation tool but rather to resolve
strained properties. As a result, the Supreme Court strikes down Section 87 of them, which
grants an automatic stay on an arbitral award.

ANALYSIS:

This ruling restores the legally established order after the Supreme Court's decision in BCCI,
preventing changes to Section 36 from being pushed to the back burner.

As a result, when new legal cases, such as an appeal to an arbitral decision, are involved (i.e.
court proceedings started after October 23, 2015), the 2015 Amendment Act may occur
regardless of whether arbitral proceedings begin. This essentially means that the terms of the
Amendment Act would extend even though parties appeal an arbitral award today issued in
arbitration that started before the Amendment Act.

As a result, there will be no immediate stay if legal action is filed to challenge the arbitral
award. In particular, the Supreme Court has explained that the initial Section 36 never implied
that simply challenging an arbitral award would trigger an immediate stay and make the prize
ineffective.

If the award debtor effectively obtains a stay of execution, the arbitral award will be executed
automatically. Furthermore, before granting a stay on managing an arbitral award, the Courts
attach some requirements to guarantee the group attempting to contest the award's bona fides.

31