Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties to the contract whereby Sumitomo claimed certain amounts from the petitioner (for short, 'ONGC') for which ONGC denied its liability. On or about 8th March, 1991, Ince & Company, the English Solicitors of Sumitomo, served a notice of arbitration on ONGC and sent a request for arbitration to the International Chamber of Commerce (for short, 'ICC'). On or about 11th March, 1991. Ince & Company appointed Mr. Robert A. Macrindle as arbitrator on behalf or Sumitomo. On or about 11th May, 1991, M/s. Desai & Diwanji, Indian Solicitors for ONGC, appointed Mr. D. M. Chandrasekhar, Retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, (India), as arbitrator on behalf ONGC. The arbitrators appointed the 1st respondent as umpire pursuant to Clause 17.2 of the contract. On or about 27th January, 1992, the Secretariate of the ICC wrote to the Solicitors of the parties to the effect that, since the ICC Rules did not provide for umpire, and since the parties were unable to agree upon the status of the umpire, in the context of the ICC Rules, the arbitration would not be able to proceed under the auspices of ICC.

5. On or about 20th October, 1992, a preliminary hearing took place in London before the arbitrators at which ONGC and Sumitomo were represented by their legal advisers. While admitting that the disputes had arisen within the terms of Clause 17.2 of the contract, it was submitted on behalf of ONGC that the arbitrators were not duly appointed and the arbitration could not proceed. The arbitrators rejected the submission made on behalf of ONGC and gave directions to Sumitomo and ONGC to file pleadings before them. On or about 16th December, 1992, ONGC petitioned to this court for an injunction to restrain Sumitomo from taking any further steps in the arbitration. No interim relief was granted in favour of ONGC to restrain Sumitomo. On or about 24th December, 1992, Ince & Company on behalf of Sumitomo applied to the Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court), London, for leave to issue and serve ONGC in India an originating summons seeking an order under Section 5 of the English Arbitration Act, to confirm powers on the arbitrators to proceed with the arbitration in default of service of a defence by ONGC. On or about 29th December, 1992, Mr. Justice Laws granted leave to Sumitomo to issue and serve the originating summons. On or about 19th January, 1993, M/s. Desai & Diwanji on behalf of PNGC applied to this court for an order that pending hearing & final disposal of ONGC's petition the arbitration be stayed & injunction restraining Sumitomo from proceeding with its originating summons in London be granted. By the order dated 22nd January, 1993 passed by Justice Vyas of this court, interim relief was declined to ONGC.

6. On or about 26th January, 1923, the originating summons taken out on behalf of Sumitomo was heard by Mr. Justice Creasswell in the Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court), London without ONGC having communicated with the Court or being represented, and Mr. Justice Creasswell passed order defining the powers of the arbitrators pursuant to Section 5 of the English Arbitration Act. On or about 27th January, 1993, M/s Desai & Diwanji served ONGC's defence in arbitration. On or about 28th January 1993, ONGC gave notice of an appeal from order dated 22nd January, 1993 passed by Mr. Justice Vyas of this Court. The appeal of ONGC was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11th November, 1993.

11. As per above recited Clause 17.1 contained in the contract, all questions, disputes or differences arising under, out of or in connection with the contract were, by mutual agreement between the parties, subjected to the laws of India. Accordingly, the parties to the contract i.e., Sumitomo and ONGC expressly chose that the proper law of the contract in force in India would govern the contract under which substantive rights were created, in respect of which the disputes had arisen.

Clause 17.2 recorded agreement between the parties for reference of any dispute, difference or question arising out of or concerning anything contained in the contract or as to the rights, liabilities or duties of Sumitomo and ONGC to arbitration, the proceedings of which were agreed to be held at London, U.K. The arbitration proceedings were agreed to be held in accordance with the provisions of ICC and the rules made thereunder as amended from time to time. The contract itself contained a procedural Code to govern arbitration proceedings.