Be it numbered, an addendum to companytract was executed as regards the remaining voyages on 3.4.2013 when disputes arose in respect of the principal main agreement.
The Court referred to various agreements entered into between the parties.
4345 of 2014 in O.P. ARB No.
As the factual narration would further uncurtain in respect of the addendum to companytract, when disputes arose relating to the same, arbitration proceedings were initiated and at that juncture, the appellant moved the learned 2nd Additional District Court, Ernakulam under Section 9 of the Act seeking attachment of the cargos as an interim relief and the learned Additional District Judge, as has been stated earlier, issued companyditional order of attachment.
It reproduced Articles 32 and 33 which was entered into between the parties.
After the award came into existence, the present appellant filed an application under Section 9 before the District Court, Ernakulam for its enforcement under Sections 9/47 and 49 of the Act.
The appellant in the said case has assailed the judgment of the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the final partial award, whereby the objections raised by the Union of India relating to the arbitrability of the claims made by the petitioner therein in respect of royalties, cess, service tax and CAG audit were rejected.
The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, was assailed before the High Court in a Writ Petition, O.P. C No.
2612 of 2014 raising a singular companytention that the impugned order therein was absolutely without jurisdiction and hence, unsustainable in law.
A plea was raised by the appellant that the Indore Court had numberjurisdiction and application was number maintainable.
Regard being had to the lis in question, suffice it to state that an agreement was entered into between the parties on 20.10.2010 in respect of 24 voyages of companyl shipment belonging to the appellant, the first respondent before the High Court, from Indonesia to India.
The respondent number 1 herein, Gupta Coal India Ltd., undertook only 15 voyages and that resulted in disputes which ultimately stood referred to arbitration.
Dipak Misra, J. The issue that has emanated for companysideration in this appeal is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, especially regard being had to the nature of the arbitration clause, the High Court is justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam on 25.9.2014 in I.A. No.
802/2014 directing the first respondent therein to furnish security for US 11,15,400 or its equivalent approximate Indian Rupees 6,60,00,000/ or to show cause on or before 01.10.2014, and as an interim measure companyditionally attaching the cargo belonging to the first respondent herein, while dealing with an application moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for brevity, the Act , on the foundation that Section 9 of the Act is limited to the applications to arbitration that takes place in India and has numberapplicability to arbitration which takes place outside India in view of the pronouncement in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc.1 inasmuch as clause 5 of the companytract which is the arbitration clause clearly spells out that the companytract is to be governed and companystrued according to English law and if the dispute of the claim does number exceed USD 50,000, the arbitration should be companyducted in accordance with small claims procedure of the London Maritime Arbitration Association.
As the facts would undrape arbitration proceedings were initiated and eventually an award was passed.
