denied except arguing that the minutes are being read out of context. After the meeting, the Petitioner on 22 July, 2006 sent an e-mail to the Respondent annexing a chart of the dues. In this chart, the Petitioner showed the dues as Rs.47,00,000/- which nearly matches the calculations of the Respondent. Even this amount has not been paid by the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 26 July, 2006, when the Respondent sent an e-mail claiming an amount of Rs.53,19,421.37/-, the Petitioner replied on the same date assuring the repayment and only asking for installments. During the cross examination of Capt. V. Kumar of the Petitioner, e-mail correspondence was shown to him. He admitted the e-mails but stated that the e-mails was sent without his authority. This is hardly any explanation. When he is the sole proprietor of the firm, burden was on him to explain. During the cross examination, a document executed by witness can be certainly shown to him to elucidate the truth. There is virtually no escape for the Petitioner from these clear and unequivocal admissions. On this ground alone, the Respondent ought to succeed. The Arbitral Tribunal was not in error in relying on these admissions.
