Parasaran, Attorney General, B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, S.S. Shroff, S.A. Shroff, R.K. Joshi, Mrs. P.S. Shroff.
Anil K. Sharma and Mohan Parasaran for the Appellant.
The Umpire did number afford a hearing subsequent to his entering upon the arbitration presumably because even when the matter was within the domain of the Arbitrators and number of the 1032 Umpire , and the Arbitrators were seized of the matter, the Umpire used to remain present at the hearings companyducted by the Arbitrators.
Thereafter, on November 5, 1985, the Respondent, Western Company, requested the Umpire to authorise one Shri C. Singhania to file the award dated October 17, 1985 in the appropriate Court in India.
24 page 579 para 1039 referred to.
1557 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Interim Petition No.
The appellant, ONGC and the Respondent Western Company, had entered into a drilling companytract.
reasoning.
1033 In order to companyfine the dialogue strictly within the brackets of the scope of the problem, four points deserve to be made at the outset before adverting to the impugned order rendered by the High Court.
The events culminating in the order under appeal may be briefly and broadly recounted.
About a month after the lodging of the award in the High Court of Bombay by the Umpire at the instance of the Respondent, Western Company, the latter lodged a plaint in the U.S. District Court, inter alia, seeking an order 1 companyfirming the two awards dated October 17, 1985 and November 28, 1985 rendered by the Umpire 2 a Judgment against the ONGC.
10 of 1986.
Consequently the Umpire en tered upon the arbitration and straightaway proceeded to declare his number speaking award styled as interim award on October 17, 1985 without affording any hearing to the par ties on the matters outstanding in the reference.
While as per the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 which admittedly governed the arbitration proceedings the Umpire would companye on the scene only provided and only when the Arbitrators gave him numberice in writing that they were unable to agree, and the Umpire would enter upon the reference in lieu of the Arbitrators only subsequent thereto, in the present case the Umpire had neither held any proceedings number had afforded any opportuni ty of being heard to the ONGC after entering upon the refer ence.
The appellant, ONGC, also prayed for an interim order restraining the Western Company from proceeding further with the action instituted in the U.S. Court.
11 of 1986 passed on April 3, 1986 in Arbitration Petition No.
The companytract provided for any differences arising out of the agreement being referred to arbitration.
S. Nariman, S.N. Thakkar, Ravinder Narain, Gulam Vahamwati, S. Sukumaran, D.N. Mishra, Adittiya Narain, Mrs. K. Verma and Miss Lira Goswami for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1031 THAKKAR, J. Was the High Court right in granting the restraint order earlier, and wrong in vacating the said order later?
The learned Single Judge granted an ex parte interim restraint order on January 20, 1986 but vacated the same after hearing the parties by his impugned order giving rise to the present appeal by Special Leave.
The arbitration proceedings were to be governed by the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 read with the relevant rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Arbitra tors entered on the reference in London which was the agreed venue for hearing as per the Arbitration Clause companytained in the companytract.
The Umpire accordingly authorised the said Shri Singhania in this behalf.
By the order in question the Respondent, Western Company of North America Western Company , was restrained from pro ceeding further with an action instituted by it in a USA Court against the appellant.
On October 1, 1985 the Arbitrators informed the Umpire that they were unable to agree on the matters outstanding in the reference.
Inter alia the challenge was rooted in the following.
On January 20, 1986, appellant ONGC on its part insti tuted an Arbitration Petition No.
A dispute had arisen between the parties.
And pursuant to the said authority the award rendered by the Umpire was lodged in the Bombay High Court on November 22, 1985.
11 of 1986.
England Vol.
Interim Order No.
The said award was number as yet enforceable in India as a domestic award inasmuch as a Judgment in accordance with the Indian law had yet to be procured in an Indian Court, by the Western Company.
The said action was targeted at seeking a judgment from the companycerned companyrt in U.S.A. on the basis of an arbi tral award rendered by an Umpire in arbitration proceedings held in London but governed by the Indian Arbitration Act, 194.0, which was the law of choice of the parties as per the arbitration clause companytained in the drilling companytract en tered into between the parties.
Appellant herein in the amount of 256,815.45 by way of interest until the date of he Judgment and companyts etc.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission ONGC .
10 of 1986 under Sections 30 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 for setting aside the awards rendered by the Umpire.
The Western Company has moved the USA Court for a judgment in terms of the award number withstanding the fact that ONGC had already initiated proceedings in an Indian Court to set aside the award and the said proceeding was as yet pending in the Indian Court.
Subsequently, on November 28, 1985 the Umpire rendered a supplementary award relating to companyts which has been termed as final award.
And the Umpire straight away proceeded to declare the interim award on October 17, 1985.
It was referred to two Arbitrators and an Umpire was also appointed.
Having been present throughout the proceed ings whilst the Arbitrators were in charge of the same, the Umpire presumably companysidered it unnecessary to hear the parties or their companynsel after he Was seized of the matter and it came within his domain in the wake of the disagree ment between the two Arbitrators.
