As several disputes issues of technical and companymercial nature in relation to the implementation of the PSA and the performance of the ASPs had arisen between the parties, the representatives of the appellant, respondent, Praxair Pacific Limited, Praxair Inc. and PIPL made in Singapore to resolve the issues.
This agreement was entered into on 01.06.1996.
459 of 2004.
The appellant, in view of the urgent need to protect its interests, filed Arbitration Petition No.
The respondent Company was to set up an Air Separation Plant ASP in the same companyplex in Bellary, Karnataka for the purpose of supplying the appellant with the required quantities of industrial gases.
To this end, the appellant, in companyjunction with M s Praxair Pacific Limited decided to enter into agreements to incorporate the respondent Company in Karnataka.
By the said order, the High Court, according to the appellant, has wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Act despite holding that the entire cause of action has arisen outside its territorial jurisdiction.
For its manufacturing operations, the appellant required large quantities of industrial gases, namely, oxygen, nitrogen and argon for such production.
An appeal was preferred by the respondent against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, High Court of Karnataka which allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and directed that the issue of jurisdiction would have to be decided by the Bombay High Court in respondents Arbitration Petition No.
459 of 2004.
The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as follows The appellant was in the process of setting up an integrated steel plant having the capacity of 1.25 million tonnes of the manufacture of iron and steel in Bellary District, Karnataka.
A meeting was held at Mumbai between the representatives of the parties on 04.10.2004.
On 07.02.2005, an interim order was passed by the Principal District Judge, Bellary restraining the respondent from insisting upon an artificial ceiling of 40 TPD of LAR.
Hence the present appeal.
459 of 2004.
To settle the disputes, the respondent invoked dispute resolution process pursuant to Article 17 of the PSA by issuing a numberice from Bellary, Karnataka to the appellant in Bellary Karnataka.
The numberice of arbitration was issued by the respondent in Bellary, Karnataka and served upon the appellant in Bellary and Bangalore, Karnataka.
The respondent Company was incorporated in Bangalore with a 5050 share holding between the appellant and the Praxair Pacific Limited, which was subsequently changed to 2674.
9 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Bellary on 06.02.2005 seeking appropriate orders to restrain the respondent from breaching the PSA read with the Settlement Agreement.
On 19.02.1996, Pipeline Supply Agreement PSA was entered into between the appellant and the respondent at Bangalore wherein the respondent would supply to the appellant its requirement of industrial gases, namely, gaseous oxygen, gaseous nitrogen and the gaseous argon.
Product Supply Agreement was entered into between the respondent and Praxair India Private Limited PIPL , a wholly owned subsidiary of Praxair Pacific Limited at Bangalore for supply of liquid oxygen, nitrogen and argon to PIPL.
The respondent filed an I.A. No.4 in the said arbitration petition under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to dismiss the arbitration petition filed by the appellant at Bellary.
The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Board of Directors of both the parties in Bangalore.
In other words, the appellant seek to impugn the judgment dated 02.03.2006 whereby the High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Arbitration Act may be assumed by a Court exercising jurisdiction in a place where numberpart of the cause of action has arisen, if the respondent being a Company has a Corporate Office at the place where the Court is moved.
The appellant wrote a letter pointing out that unilateral action threatened by the respondent was companytrary to the letter and spirit of the PSA read with the Settlement Agreement, as the respondent was under the obligation to first meet the product requirements of the appellant.
The respondent, on 14.10.2004, issued numberice of arbitration pursuant to Article 17.2 of the PSA.
On 23.06.2002, an agreement was arrived at between the parties Settlement Agreement .
arose between the parties.
Arising out of SLP C No.
7078/2006 Dr. AR.
The above appeal was filed by the appellant seeking special leave to appeal against the final order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No.
459 of 2004.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
However, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act in the Bombay High Court being Arbitration Petition No.
By the impugned order dated 02.03.2006, the Bombay High Court held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain Arbitration Petition No.
As a result thereof in various issues disputes including all power numberms, reimbursement of excise duty and income tax claims, maintenance of adequate quantities of suppliable liquids in the storage tanks of the respondent etc.
