Fact-5 and Fact-6

5. That, in terms of the arbitration clause, the dispute was referred to GAFTA arbitration in London, in accordance with English Law. The Petitioner appointed Mr K Haylock as their arbitrator. As the Respondent failed to appoint their arbitrator, the Petitioner's legal representatives Arizon Abogados S.L.P. ("Arizon") applied to GAFTA for the appointment of an arbitrator on Respondent's behalf in accordance with Rule 3.3 1 of GAFTA 125. GAFTA gave notice to the parties that, since the Respondent had failed to appoint an arbitrator within 9 consecutive days of receipt of Petitioner's Notice of the appointment of Mr. K. Haylock, Mr S. Kim has been appointed as the second arbitrator.

6. That, only the Petitioner participated in the arbitration and the Respondent did not participate in the Arbitration. Petitioner did not request an oral hearing and the matter was determined on documents alone. On 22 March 2022, a reasoned Final Arbitration Award was published by Mr. K. Haylock and Mr. S. Kim ("Award"), which is annexed hereto as Annexure P/4. As the seat of the arbitration was England and the Award was subject to English procedural and substantive laws, it therefore follows that the Award is an English Award for the purposes of recognition and enforcement under the terms of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Under the Award, the Petitioner was awarded the following amounts:

A. Claim: USD 1,292,389.86 (One Million Two Hundred and Ninety-Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Eighty-Nine United States Dollars and Eighty-Six Cents) on match the soge of mention in a

The composition of the arbitral tribunal and the actual procedure was in accordance with the agreements of the parties and the law governing the arbitration proceedings.

The Award is final and binding and have not been challenged or set aside as per the law applicable to the Award. Enforcement of the Award is not contrary to the public policy of India.

That, in the premises aforesaid, the Petitioner submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the Award dated 22 March, 2022 is required to be declared as enforceable as a decree of this Hon be Court and executable as such.

That, the present petition is filed under Part II of the Act read with Order XXI of the CPC, 1908. The Petitioner submits that this Hon'ble Court is a "Court" as defined by the Explanation to Section 47 of the Act. Further, the Respondent is located and carries on business in Indore which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to receive entertain and dispose of this petition. 

That, the Award was made and published on 22 March 2022 and the petition is therefore filed in time and is not barred by limitation.