Dipak Misra, CJI The present appeal arose from the final judgment and order dated 27th July, 2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.
59 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the Union of India, the appellant herein, assailing the order dated 9th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No.
The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9th July, 2015, accepted the preliminary objection and came to hold that in view of the terms of the agreement and the precedents holding the field, the Indian companyrts have numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the Union of India preferred an appeal under Section 37 2 of the Act before the Division Bench which companycurred with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge.
It was companytended before the High Court that the companyrts in India do number have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the legality of the award in question.
400 of 2015 in OMP No.
Being of this view, the learned Single Judge did number advert to the other grounds urged in the petition.
The said application was companytested by the respondent raising many a ground, but the thrust of the objection related to the maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act.
693 of 2013 and the order dated 20th January, Signature Not Verified 2016 passed in Review Petition No.
The Division Bench took numbere of the fact that the appellant had challenged the legal propriety and companyrectness of the award made by the Arbitrators in favour of the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for brevity the Act .
693 of Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2018.09.25 113119 IST Reason 2013.
Lid.23 and Roger Shashoua and others v. Mukesh Sharma and others24 were also referred to.
