23. It is an admitted position that the dispute arose under the Services Agreement of 8th May 2023 executed between the parties, which contains a dispute resolution clause 11.3, as has been extracted in para 6 above. The dispute therefore has to be arbitrated under a sole arbitrator as per the clause. 24. Having perused the documents and appreciating contentions of the parties, this Court notes that, as evident from communication extracted above and the flow of events, the parties were consistently collaborating to develop an ad campaign under the Services Agreement. Not only were there substantial presentations made for the proposed theme, format, content of the campaign but the respondent also made a choice and selection to go ahead with ‘ Jude Raho India ’ theme. This is evident from communications of 27th May 2023, 5th June 2023, 12th June 2023, 21st June 2023, 29th June 2023 and 14th July 2023. In fact, it is surprising that there was no precursor to sudden termination which the respondent delivered on 25th July 2023. There is no communication on record nor asserted by respondent, prior to 25th July 2023 when unilateral termination was communicated, which expressed specific grievances in relation to delivery. Emails of 14th July 2023 as mentioned in para 8.9 above, specifically bear out that ‘ Steel of India’ campaign was shared by petitioner. Also, there were discussions on payment of 50% advance in email of 14th July 2023 which significantly were responded to by respondent on the same day stating that “ please continue services, the payments shall be released within this week ”. Thereafter, within a week or 10 days, respondent issued termination notice which seems to this Court a bit amiss in these circumstances. Further, there was no explanation offered by the senior counsel for respondent, as to why payment
