Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4) Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.1.

5) After taking us through agreements entered into by both the parties, subsequent developments such as alleged violations, Award by an Arbitrator at U.K., proceedings before the District Court, Michigan, USA and the impugned proceedings of the Ist Additional Chief Judge-City Civil Court, Secunderabad as well as the order of the High Court, Mr. K.K. Venugopal learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following contentions:

iii) The overriding Section 11.5 (c) of the SHA would exclude respondent No.1- Satyam Computer Services Ltd. approaching the US Court in regard to the enforcement of the Award.

6) On the other hand, Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, appearing for the first respondent, submitted that,

(i) In view of Section 44 of the Act and the terms of the agreement, no suit would lie in India to set aside the Award, which is a foreign Award.

(ii) No application under Section 34 of the Act would lie to set aside the Award.

7) We perused all the relevant materials, Annexures and considered the rival contentions.

8) Since both Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. F. Nariman, learned senior counsel, for respondent No.1 heavily relied on a judgment of this Court in Bhatia International (supra), in support of their respective stand, let us consider the facts in that case and ultimate conclusion arrived at therein.

9) Bhatia International filed an Appeal before this Court against the judgment of the M.P. High Court in W.P. No. 453 of 2000. The appellant-Bhatia International entered into a contract with the first respondent  Bulk Trading on 9.5.1997. This contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that arbitration was to be as per the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short ICC). On 23.10.1997, the Ist respondent made a request for arbitration with ICC. Parties had agreed that the arbitration be held in Paris, France. ICC has appointed a sole arbitrator. The first respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Act before the 3rd Additional District Judge, Indore, M.P. against the appellant and the 2nd respondent. One of the interim reliefs sought for was an order of injunction restraining these parties from alienating, transferring and/or creating third- party rights, disposing of, dealing with and/or selling their business assets and properties. The appellant raised the plea of maintainability of such an application. The appellant contended that Part I of the Act would not apply to arbitrations where the place of arbitration was not in India. The application was rejected by the 3rd Additional District Judge on 1-2-2000. It was held that the court at Indore (M.P.) had jurisdiction and the application was maintainable. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2000. Several contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant, namely, Part I of the Act only applies to arbitrations where the place of arbitration is in India and if the place of arbitration is not in India then Part II of the said Act would apply. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions of Part I do not apply where the place of arbitration is not in India. The Court at Indore could not have entertained the application under Section 9 of the Act as Part I did not apply to arbitrations which had taken place outside India. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1, it was submitted that a conjoint reading of the provisions shows that Part I is to be applied to all arbitrations. It was further submitted that unless the parties by their agreement exclude its provisions, Part I would also apply to all International Commercial arbitrations including those that take place out of India.

(1) International Standard Electric Corp. vs. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera, Industrial Y Comercial, 745 F.supp.172 (2) M & C Corporation vs. ERWIN BEHR GmbH & Co., KG, a foreign corporation, 87 F.3d 844 (3) Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons vs. Toys R US. INC. Thr. (HK) Ltd. 126 F.3d 15 (4) Karaha Bodas Co. L.L.C. vs. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyakdan Gas Bumi Negara 364 F.3d 274 (5) C v. D (2007) EWHC 1541

16) Apart from the above US decisions, Mr. R.F. Nariman, pointed out that all the Indian High Courts except the Gujarat High Court in Nirma Ltd. vs. Lurgi Energie Und Entsorgung GMBH, Germany, AIR 2003 Gujarat 145 have taken this consistent view in the following judgments: