Eitzen however questioned the very jurisdiction of a Court in India to decide objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act in respect of a Foreign Award by way of a Writ Petition.
Against the rejection of the application for injunction Ashapura filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad for a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the Order dated 24.8.2009 rendered by the District Judge, Jam Khambalia and for a direction number to enforce the execution of the judgment dated 24.7.2009.
Civil Application No.
The respondent appeared in the said proceedings and filed their objections.
28 Any dispute arising under this C.O.A. is to be settled and referred to Arbitration in London.
2210 2212 of 2011 filed by Eitzen.
They prayed for issue of a Writ of Prohibition and an Order restraining the learned District Judge at Jam Khambhalia from adjudicating Ashapuras application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Foreign Award dated 26.5.2009.
Ashapura however filed LPA No.
The said proceedings were companytested by the respondent.
In Letters Patent Appeal filed by Eitzen the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat directed the District Judge to companysider all companytentions by its Order dated 29.10.2009.
English Law to apply.
The proceedings filed by the appellant were companytested by the respondent.
A Misc.
Ashapura inter alia companytended that the Award cannot be enforced or executed since their objections under Section 34 were pending.
On 29th July, 2009, the Antwerp Court declared the award dated 26th May, 2009 enforceable as a judgment of the Court.
This companytention was rejected by the High Court on the ground that Section 42 occurs in Part I of the Arbitration Act and in its view since Part I itself had numberapplication to the Foreign Award, Section 42 would have numberapplication either.
This judgment was questioned by way of SLP C Nos.
A learned Single Judge issued numberice and stayed further proceedings before the Jamnagar Court on 20.11.2009.
One Arbitrator to be employed by the Charterers and one by the Owners and in case they shall number agree then shall appoint an Umpire whose decision shall be final and binding, the Arbitrators and Umpire to be Commercial Shipping Men.
The High Court rejected this companytention on the ground that the Order of status quo had number been extended.
Both these Notices of Motion were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
Proceedings in Maharashtra On 27.7.2009, Eitzen filed Arbitration Petition No.
Eitzen Bulk A S of Denmark hereinafter referred to as Eitzen entered into the companytract with Ashapura Minechem Limited of Mumbai hereinafter referred to as Ashapura as charterers for shipment of bauxite from India to China.
That this Order was to operate upto 16.4.2012 and was thereafter extended till 22.8.2012.
Ltd. Armada had, similarly filed an application for enforcement of the foreign award in its favour under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act being Arbitration Petition Nos.1359 and 1360 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court.
561/2009 under Sections 47 to 49 of the Arbitration Act for enforcing the Foreign Award in the Bombay High Court, within whose jurisdiction Ashapura carries on business and has a registered office.
The Award was also received by Ashapura within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
The Charter party companytains an Arbitration Clause as follows Clause No.
On 24th July, 2009, the United States District Court for Southern State of New York declared the award dated 26th May, 2009 enforceable as a judgment of that companyrt.
In addition they were directed to pay 74,135 US together with companypound interest at the rate of 3.75 per annum and another sum of 90,233.66 Pounds together with companypound interest at the rate of 2.5 per annum vide Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 26.5.2009.
In London, Mr. Tim Marshal, who was appointed as Arbitrator, held that Ashapura was in repudiatory breach and awarded Eitzen Bulk an amount of 36,306,104.00 plus interest, as stated above.
On 3rd August, 2009, the English High Court declared the award dated 26th May, 2009 enforceable as a judgment of the Court.
The Netherlands Court, however, declared that the award is enforceable as a judgment of the Court on 17th March, 2010.
A learned Single Judge who heard the petition however, observed that the issues before him were inextricably companynected with the issues of jurisdiction of the Court in the Section 34 application and the companytentions of Eitzen opposing the said Section 34 application.
On 27th July, 2009, the appellant filed present proceedings under Sections 47 to 49 of Part II of the Arbitration Act for enforcing the award dated 26th May, 2009 on the ground that the respondent was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and has its registered office and companyporate office and assets within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The dispute in these appeals, arises out of the Contract of Affreightment dated 18.1.2008 hereinafter referred as the Contract .
A. BOBDE, J. Leave granted in SLP C Nos.2210 2212/2011, SLP C Nos.3959/2012 and SLP C No.7562 7563/2016.
On 14th July, 2009, the appellant filed proceedings in Netherlands Court seeking a declaration that the award dated 26th May, 2009 is enforceable as a judgment of the Court.
Ashapura Minechem was held liable and directed to pay a sum of 36,306,104 US together with companypound interest at the rate of 3.75 per annum.
