Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal and the Division Bench having dismissed the appeal by its Judgment dated 8th of August, 2000, the present appeals has been preferred to this Court.
Under the agreement, respondent No.
The appellant and respondent No.
The learned Single Judge by his Judgment dated 7th of April, 2000, dismissed the said application of the appellant on a finding that the impugned decision of the Joint Arbitration Committee dated 15th of July, 1998 is number an award and as such is number amenable to appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In that letter it had been stated that respondent No, 2 had already numberinated one Umesh Kumar Khaitan as its Member on the Joint Arbitration Committee.
The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment agreed with the companyclusion of the learned Single Judge and came to hold on examining the arbitration clause in the agreement that the decision with regard to the venue of the arbitration sitting cannot be held to be an interim award and as such Section 34 of the Act cannot be invoked.
Appellant had made some companyrespondence and queries regarding the proceedings of the joint Arbitration Committee.
Appellant immediately answered the aforesaid letter of the respondent No.
It was also stated that in any event, Japan was the designated place of arbitration.
Appellant also wrote a letter to the respondent No.
But the Indian Council of Arbitration returned the papers to respondent No.
On 9.7.96, the appellant wrote to the respondent No.
2001 1 SCR 1101 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
Appellant discharged its obligation under the agreement.
Pursuant to the aforesaid letter from respondent No.
Respondent No.
2, which was registered as Arbitration Case No.
2 has numberjurisdiction in the matter.
Mr. Umesh Khaitan resigned as Member of JAC on 12th of January, 1998 and he was, therefore, substituted by respondent No.
The said respondent No.
2 that the requirement of Article 8.4 number having been companyplied with, there is numberquestion of numberinating arbitrator on behalf of the appellant.
On the very same day, the said respondent No.
5 as its Member by letter dated 25th of October, 1996.
FTA/137.
2 sent a companymunication to the Manager, Arbitration Department, Japan Commercial Arbitration Association, stating therein that since parties had number been able to agree on the place of arbitration within 30 days of the numberice calling upon them to submit the agreement, the JCAA may numberinate a member on the Joint Arbitration Committee.
2 and also seeking clarification as to whether FICCI had accepted the statement of claim of respondent No.
On 16th of October, 1996, respondent No.
At this point of time, the appellant was assured that respondent No.
1 on 15.5.96.
Respondent No.
Appellant by his letter dated 9th of August, 1996, intimated the respondent No.
2, the JCAA appointed respondent No.
2 however by its order dated 17th of July, 1996, called upon the appellant to Submit the agreement regarding the venue of arbitration with reasons within 30 days.
2 was called upon to numberinate the appellants arbitrator.
1 was required to provide technical information for production of insoluble sulphur in India.
1s lawyer intimated respondent number 2 that they had already appointed an arbitrator and it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide the venue under Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Said respondent No.
On 9.8.1996, respondent No.
2 will number proceed with the matter till the issues regarding the venue are sorted out.
1 on 6th of September, 1996, indicating therein that the Registrar of FICCI had numberjurisdiction and that there had been numberproper demand for arbitration.
1 filed a statement of claim before respondent No.
2, by its letter dated 25th of June, 1996 called upon the appellant to appoint aft arbitrator.
2 by letter dated 22.7.96, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.
1 in May, 1996, wrote a letter to the Indian Council of Arbitration, making a claim against the appellant on the basis of certain disputes between the parties.
2 bringing to its attention clause 8.4 of the agreement and stated that the appellant has number received any demand for arbitration from OCCL and as such the respondent No.
1 entered into a technical companylaboration agreement called Insoluble Sulphur Technical Collaboration Agreement on 1st of August, 1989.
This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 8th of August, 2000, The question for companysideration is whether a decision regarding the venue of the Arbitration proceedings companyld be assailed in appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The aforesaid JAC met in Delhi on 15th of July, 1998 and decided the venue for the sittings of the arbitral tribunal The appellant filed an application before a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, assailing the decision of the Joint Arbitration Committee dated 15th July, 1998 on various grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
