Bangalore District Court M/S Cryptograph Technologies Private ... vs M/S Evenion Technologies Private ... on 19 September, 2024 KABC170025312022 IN THE COURT OF LXXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.88) Present: Smt. Roopa K.N., B.Sc., LL.B., LXXXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Dated : 19th day of September, 2024 Com.A.P. No.98/2022 PETITIONER : M/s.Cryptograph Technologies Private Limited, No.87, 3rd Floor, 27th Main Road, Sector I, H.S.R. Layout, Bengaluru 560 102. Rep By its Managing Director. (By Sri.AKS Advocate) Vs RESPONDENT : M/s Evenion Technologies Private Limited, No.1/1, 3rd Floor, No.301, Raheja Arcade, 7th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 095 Presently having office at No.47/1, Narayana Arcade, 2nd Floor, Subbaramachetty Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru 560 004. Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Sri Sudhir Haregoppa Vankatagiri (R1 By Sri.VRH Advocate) /2/ Com.A.P.98/2022 Date of Institution of the suit 16.09.2022 Nature of the suit (suit on Arbitration Suit. pronote, suit for declaration & Possession, Suit for injunction etc.) Date of commencement of recording of evidence Date on which judgment was 19.09.2024 pronounced Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 01 11 33 (ROOPA K.N.), LXXXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Dedicated Commercial Court) Bengaluru. :J U D G M E N T : This Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking set aside of the award passed by the sole arbitrator in A.C.No.35/2021 dtd:18.06.2022. 2. The parties are referred as per their original rank before the arbitral tribunal for the sake of clarity. After service of summons respondent herein appeared through /3/ Com.A.P.98/2022 his counsel and filed objections to the main petition. 3. The respondent appeared through his counsel and filed objections to the main petition. LCR was called. 4. Heard arguments of both side. 5. Now the point that arise for my consideration are; 1. Whether, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the arbitral award passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator dtd:18.06.2022 in A.C.No.35/2021 requires to be set aside under Sec.34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act? 2. What Order? 6. My findings on the above Points are as under: Point No.1 : In the "Negative". Point No.2: As per the final order for the following reasons /4/ Com.A.P.98/2022 : R E A S O N S : 7. Point No.1 : The petitioner herein being the respondent before the tribunal has filed the present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenging the award passed by sole arbitrator in A.C.35/2021. 8. It was the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, the Claimant is a MSM Enterprise engaged in the business of computer programming, consultancy and other related activities. The Respondent is in the business of software development and project implementation. 9. The respondent intended and proposed to implement a software development project to M/s. Tech Mahindra. It was a fresh project of implementation of SAPERP system at Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL). The said project was /5/ Com.A.P.98/2022 awarded by HSL in favour of M/s.Tech Mahindra. M/s.Tech Mahindra in turn, awarded the project in favour of the respondent. Since the respondent did not have the technical knowhow for implementing a SAP ERP system, Sri Sudhir Sharma, Vice President (Sales) of the respondent approached the Claimant during 1st week of April, 2017 with a request to take up the project. 10. The negotiations were held between the claimant and respondent regarding the requirement of HSL, the volume of work involved, the