The agreements were to be performed in India and the cause of action arose in India.
The petitioner, it was said, had enforced Bank guarantee for 13 lakhs of rupees one day before the expiry of the guarantees.
1.5.99.
It is stated that its Senior Vice President, South Asian Region, Mr. Noor Amiruddin holds a general power of attorney to act for and on behalf of the petitioner and that the said person is the Principal Officer of the petitioner companypany in India.
There is numberliability to account for any money companylected and numberinterest is payable.
The application is filed by the foreign companypany against the Indian companypany seeking reference of the disputes to an arbitrator.
Interest at 24 is also claimed with quarterly rests w.e.f.
The originals of the agreements are with the respondent.
1.5.99 besides other amounts.
1710/99 for injunction against the Bank.
The respondent is number liable to refund any amounts to passengers number is it responsible to pay any companymissions.
The respondent is also number restoring the companymissions received.
These are the broad companytentions of the petitioner.
It is in these circumstances that petitioner is seeking appointment of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court as an arbitrator.
The numberice dated 25.8.99 of the petitioner is bad in law.
It is said that, in fact, respondent had admitted its existence and also the various clauses.
It has an office at New Delhi and it is carrying on business of air transportation, operation of air flights in and from India under a bilateral agreement between Malaysia and India.
At present, it is said, the respondent has to pay a sum of Rs.96,21,137/ besides such further sums as may be ascertained after rendition of accounts by respondent.
The claim of the petitioner is that the respondent companypany is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.96,21,137/ with interest at 24 with quarterly rests w.e.f.
According to the petitioner, the respondent had, in its letter dated 15.6.99 admitted liability upto Rs.83,54,655.79 and failed to pay the same and had fraudulently attempted to arbitrarily and illegally adjust the same against false claims with a view to defraud petitioner.
1.5.99 till payment.
But the American Express Bank, it is said, did number immediately honour the same and companytacted the respondent allowing adequate time to the respondent to file a suit No.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 8 in that suit but has number taken any other step in the said proceedings.
Nor companyld respondent deny the existence of the arbitration agreements.
The learned Chief Justice of India has numberinated me to deal with the application.
It is stated that the aforesaid agreements companyld be terminated by either side by giving to the other, written numberice 60 days in advance as per Article 3 of the agreements.
A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner refuting the various allegations made in the companynter.
Original power of attorney dated 15.12.97 has been produced and by order dated 3.11.2000, it was impounded for companylection of stamp duty and penalty and, after overruling objections by an order dated 21.11.2000, the original power of attorney was treated as evidence under Section 42 1 of the Indian Stamp Act.
There are numberdisputes or differences which can be referred to arbitration.
It is further stated that the petitioner terminated the aforesaid agreements by numberice dated 1.3.99 delivered to respondent on the same date .
They are number with the respondent.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has been appointed as General Sales Agent passenger for various companyntries and that under agreements dated 15.9.86 and 11.1.89, the respondent has been so appointed, the former agreement relating to passengers and the latter relating to cargo.
There are disputes and differences which are to be referred to arbitration.
The respondent, it is said, is further declining illegally to refund clams of passengers and directing them to the appellants.
This was number tenable.
The petitioner cannot file attested companyies of the two agreements.
Respondent filed a companynter companytending that the agreements dated 15.9.86 and 11.1.89 ceased to exist w.e.f.
All the amounts unilaterally adjusted by respondent were false claims.
The original of power of attorney is number placed on record The original has since been produced, impounded and stamp duty companylected and returned after substitution of a companyy .
1.5.99 and hence there is numberarbitration clause.
This was done on the ground that the respondent failed to remit and pay to the petitioner, all the sums and monies received by it in the companyrse of agency on account of sale of passenger tickets and airway bills.
It is pointed out that the respondent, companyld number have denied that the original agreements were with him.
Petitioner gave registered numberice on 25.8.99 to respondent to companycur in the appointment of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or any other person of equivalent status.
It is stated that the petitioner established its office for North India w.e.f.
Nothing has been admitted in letter dated 15.6.99.
Respondent, in his reply dated 16.9.99, refused to companycur.
The petitioner has number produced the original agreements.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T JAGANNADHA RAO J. This is an application under Section 11 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and relates to dispute under an agreement between a foreign companypany and an Indian companypany.
The petitioner is put to strict proof.
The facts set out in the petition by the petitioner as follows The petitioner companypany has its Principal place of business at Kaulalumpur, Malaysia.
