Gujarat High Court
Hardy Exploration And Production ... vs Hindustan Oil Exploration Company ... on 9 September, 2020
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/IAAP/34/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 34 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR VACATING INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/PETN. UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 34 of 2020
==========================================================
HARDY EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION (INDIA) INC.
Versus
HINDUSTAN OIL EXPLORATION COMPANY LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR THAKORE, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR MANAN K
PANERI(7959) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR ANMOL A
MEHTA(8390) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 09/09/2020
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Kamal Trivedi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Anmol A. Mehta, learned advocate for Respondent. It is contended by Mr. Trivedi that the present application under Section 9 is not maintainable in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as an application under Section 9 of the Act was preferred by the Petitioner at a pre-arbitration stage before the High Court of Judicature, Madras. This Hon'ble Court has therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. This apart, the Mr. Trivedi also contended that no application under Section 9 was maintainable as the seat of arbitral proceedings was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and the arbitration agreement, notwithstanding Article 18 was to be governed by laws of England, whereby the parties had tacitly excluded the jurisdiction of courts Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 23:02:55 IST 2020 C/IAAP/34/2020 ORDER in India. He relied upon the order of the High Court of Judicature, Madras in the application filed under Section 9 of the Act by the Applicant at pre-arbitration stage, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge.
2. Mr. Mihir Thakore, Learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Manan K. Paneri, learned advocate for Petitioner agreed that in light of Section 42 of the Act, this Court would have no jurisdiction in respect of the present application filed under Section 9 of the Act and therefore seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with a view to file a fresh petition before the Madras High Court. In so far as the contention of the Respondent that an application under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable in any court in India is concerned, Mr. Thakore relied upon the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in appeal filed by the Applicant against the order dated 30.11.2017 passed in application under Section 9 of the Act referred by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent keeping the said issue open to be decided at an appropriate stage.
3. It goes without saying that this court has not gone into the merits of the matter and both parties are at liberty to raise all issues as and when fresh proceedings are taken out.
4. Considering the facts permission as prayed for by Mr. Thakore to withdraw the Petition is granted. The present petition accordingly stands disposed off reserving liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court keeping all the issues open. However, Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 23:02:55 IST 2020 C/IAAP/34/2020 ORDER the ad-interim relief dated 07.08.2020 and modified vide 14.08.2020 stands vacated forthwith.
5. At this stage, Mr. Trivedi for the respondent seeks costs. However considering the facts, there shall be no order as to costs.
6. Since the Petition is withdrawn the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Divya / BIMAL Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 23:02:55 IST 2020