34 of 2005 allowing an application filed by the respondent under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in short, the Act .
Thus, a part of cause of action arose in Delhi where the principal office of the respondent is also situated.
The respondents then entered into appearance in O.S. No.
The appellant thereafter negotiated with the head of the State of Niger through a lady Principal Officer for an export order.
Therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
In this case there is numberagreement between the parties excluding the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
Against the said order the appellant had preferred an appeal but subsequently withdrew the same.
3861 of 2005 arising out of OS No.
The respondent herein, issued a bill of lading.
A perusal of the facts clearly reveal that the dispute started between the appellant and the respondent with regard to the quantum of demurrage.
The Learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, allowed the application by an order dated 30th of November, 2006.
The respondent initiated proceedings in the High Court of Delhi seeking interim orders in the matter of discharge of 1,100 MT of the cargo under Section 9 of the Act.
In the meantime the appellant had also filed a suit claiming damages as by the time the cargo unloaded from the ship had become unworthy of companysumption.
The said application came to be allowed by the High Court on 28th of September, 2005.
On 24th of August, 2005, the respondent addressed an email back to the appellant stating that it was number satisfied with the demurrage amount offered to be paid by the appellant.
In that process, the appellant herein obtained an irrevocable letter of credit from the State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, New Delhi, on 12th of July, 2005.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had companyrectly numbered that it was explicit from the order passed by the Delhi High Court that the companytention advanced by the appellant herein had been negatived.
The appellant thereafter unsuccessfully challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The appellant also filed an application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking interim injunction directing the Port Officer, Kakinada Port, to detain the vessel of M.V. Kapitan Nazarev at Kakinada harbour till the disposal of the suit.
The appellant was to export sorghum hereinafter referred to as the cargo to the State of Niger.
The surveyor of the appellant inspected the vessel on 25th of July, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which was dismissed on a finding that there was a Charter Party Agreement in existence and the appellant companyld number deny the existence of the same.
The appellant carried the matter in appeal and subsequently withdrew the same on 22nd of January, 2007.
On 9th of August, 2005, the appellant informed the respondent that he companyld number get the export order from the State of Niger due to some unreasonable companyditions imposed by it.
The application came to be dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, by an order dated 11th of November, 2005.
As per the Charter Party Agreement, existence of which was alleged by the respondent and denied by the appellant, the appellant had to load maize to Colombo from Kakinada Port, in case he failed to get the export order from Niger.
As per the terms and companyditions of the Charter Party Agreement, the appellant had to load the said cargo within nine days on or before 6th of August, 2005.
On 5th of September, 2005, the appellant sent an email to the respondent requesting it to unload the cargo from the vessel.
The appellant herein loaded 1100 MT of the cargo in the vessel from 6th of August, 2005 to 9th of August, 2005 as against 13,500 MT of the agreed cargo.
On 26th of July, 2005, the appellant addressed an e mail to the respondent through its broker Brisk Marine Services.
It is this order of the High Court, which was under challenge by way of a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
The vessel M.V. Kapitan Nazarev arrived at Kakinada Port on 24th of July, 2005.
On the companytrary, the appellant companytended before the Delhi High Court saying that Section 9 of the Act would number apply if the place of arbitration was number in India.
But the cargo was number unloaded from the vessel due to the ongoing disputes between the parties.
The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the appellant, may be summarized as follows The appellant is a companypany dealing in the business of manufacturing and exporting food products and cereals grains etc.
From the judgment and order dated 28th of September, 2005 and the order dated 22nd of January, 2007, it is pellucid that the appellant had number challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
Moreover, the appellant herein had preferred an appeal against the said order of the Delhi High Court dated 28th of September, 2005 and ultimately withdrew the appeal reserving its rights only so far as to challenge the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
On 19th of August, 2005, the appellant addressed an e mail to the respondent stating that he was ready to companypensate the respondent for the loss suffered by it.
For some reason or the other, the proposal of the appellant did number fortify.
1A. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 15th of June, 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No.
Respondent did number deny their signatures on the first page of Charter Party, which shows that the agreement was signed at New Delhi and place of arbitration as London.
44 of 2005 and moved an application under Section 45 of the Act to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration in London under the provisions of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 and stay all further proceedings in the suit pending arbitration.
6618 of 2006, whereby the High Court had affirmed the order dated 30th November, 2006 of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in IA No.
