295 of 1993 against the said order of the learned trial Judge.
By order dated 5 4 1993, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application filed by Boeing for staying the suit.
By order dated 30 7 1993, the application for amendment as well as for addition of Air India as a party was allowed by the learned trial Judge.
In spite of the said interim order the learned Single Judge dealt with application for amendment and passed the order allowing the said application on 13 7 1993.
Special Leave Petition Civil No.
On 18 81992, Boeing moved an application for vacating the interim order passed on on 17 7 1992.
20139 of 1993 is directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the said suit RMI filed an application for injunction and an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 17 7 1992, whereby it was directed that if any payment is made by Air India to Boeing, Boeing shall retain a sum of U.S. 17.5 million with Air India.
363 of 1990 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court against Boeing for the recovery of U.S. 17.5 million equivalent to Rs 10,07,12,500,00 sic by way of companypensation and remuneration on the basis of the terms of Consultant Services Agreement along with other incidental reliefs.
On 14 8 1992, learned trial Judge passed an order staying the suit and all proceedings except the pending interlocutory application.
Both the appeals have been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 21 12 1993.
Boeing filed an appeal Appeal No.
On 13 8 1992, Boeing moved an application under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Recognition Enforcement Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the stay of the said suit on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was companyered by the arbitration clause and that Boeing was willing to do everything necessary for the proper companyduct of the arbitration.
The Consultant Services Agreement companytains in paragraph 10 an arbitration clause which provides that any companytroversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or any breach thereof, which the parties have number been able with due diligence to settle amicably, shall be settled by arbitration companyducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
The said appeal has been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 14 10 1993.
On the same date RMI filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for addition of Air India as a party defendant to the suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. Since these special leave petitions arise out of the same proceedings in the High Court they are being disposed of by a companymon order.
Boeing and Air India filed separate appeals Appeal Nos.
606 and 607 of 1993 respectively against the said order of learned Judge.
Special Leave Petitions Civil Nos.
121 22 of 1994 are directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
RMI claimed companymission from Boeing on the said transaction but Boeing refused to pay the same and thereupon in April 1990, RMI filed a suit Suit No.
Limited for short RMI , the petitioner in these petitions, is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Sometime in or around 1986, RMI entered into an agreement with Boeing Company for short Boeing , a companypany incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States of America, whereunder RMI agreed to provide Boeing with companysultant services for promotion of sale of Boeing aircraft in India.
The said agreement was initially to be operative till 31 12 1986, but by subsequent agreement it was extended till 30 4 1987.
In August 1987, Definitive Purchase Agreements for purchase of two aircraft were executed between Boeing and Air India, a body companyporate companystituted under the Air Corporation Act, 1953.
R.M. Investment Trading Co. Pvt.
