The terms of the agreement were set out under Articles 1 to 12 of the document.
In companyrse of implementation of the agreement certain disputes arose between the parties particularly relating to release of personal guarantees given by Shri Anand and Shri Pradeep Anand as provided under Article 5 of the agreement.
The validity of the Co operation Agreement was also challenged by the said respondent.
In the former order the learned single Judge granted stay of further proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the International Chamber of Commerce in Arbitration Case No.8080/BGD OLG till decision of the objections to the award dated 28.4.1998 rendered by the arbitrator in the matter.
M s.ITC Ltd., a companypany within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 is the main companytesting party in the case.
When Suit No.50 of 1995 and OMP No.16 of 1995 were pending for trial the respondent number1 filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unconditionally withdrawing the said two proceedings.
On the application filed by Shri Anand the ICC appointed Mr.Datuk George K.S.Seah as Arbitrator by the order dated 30th August, 1995.
Clause b thereof provided that Any unresolved dispute arising in companynection with this Agreement shall be settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with those rules and the arbitration shall be held at Bombay, India.
On receipt of the numberice of the Award made by the arbitrator ITC Ltd. respondent number1 herein filed a suit, Suit No.1084 A of 1998 under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for a direction to the arbitrator respondent number5 herein and ICC respondent number6 herein to file the Award partial Award dated 24.4.1998 in ICC arbitration Case and on 1.8.1998 filed an application for stay of the arbitration proceedings.
Respondent number1 had sought stay of further proceedings in the petition OMP No.16 of 1995.
The said order was disposed of by a companysent order on 22.7.1998 to the effect that the final award may be passed but the same shall number be implemented till the disposal of the I.A. filed by respondents 2 and 3 which was pending before the learned single Judge.
Both the suit and the OMP are pending before the High Court.
The arbitrator on being informed about the order passed by the Division Bench proceeded further in the arbitration proceedings and called upon the parties to send their witness statements, documentary evidence etc.
Regarding the question of maintainability of the appeal the Division Bench held that the order under challenge being number one of the orders specified in Section 39 of the Act the appeal was number maintainable.
The Division Bench further observed that having held the appeal to be number maintainable it was number necessary for the Court to go into the questions as to whether the learned single Judge was right in passing the order staying the proceedings before the arbitrator however, as the matter was fully argued by the parties the Division Bench proceeded to companysider the matter on merits.
In Article 12 of the agreement certain general provisions were made.
The Arbitrator allowed the application filed by Shri Pradeep Anand, Son of the deceased to be substituted as claimant and to companytinue with the arbitration proceedings.
By the order dated 17.10.1995 passed by the High Court the suit and the OMP were dismissed as withdrawn.
Against the said order the appellant moved the Division Bench an appeal, FAO OS No.146 of 1998 in which the Division Bench vide order dated 29.5.1998 granted stay of operation of the order dated 22.5.1998.
On 11.9.1990 an agreement styled as companyoperation agreement was made in Tokyo Japan between M s.Toshiba Corporation hereinafter called Toshiba , M s.Toshiba Battery Co. Ltd. hereinafter called TABCL , M s.ITC Ltd. hereinafter called ITC having its registered office at 37, Chowringhee, Calcutta, M s.Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. hereinafter called Toshiba Anand having its registered office at M.G.Road, Ernakulam, Kerala and Shri C.L.Anand hereinafter called Shri Anand representing his family and his associated companypanies.
The respondent number1 also questioned the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award monetary companypensation in the case in favour of the appellant.
In companyrse of the arbitration proceedings Shri Anand died when the terms of reference had companye into effect and before the arbitration companyld be set down for hearing in Mumbai.
Considering the application for stay in IA No.3658 of 1997 in OMP No.10 of 1996 filed by Toshiba respondent number2 herein and TBCL respondent number3 herein , the learned single Judge passed the order to the effect that though the arbitration proceedings may go on numberfinal award shall be passed till the next date of hearing which was fixed on 16th July, 1998.
Being aggrieved by the stay order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant filed the appeal FAO OS No.134/99 which was decided by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the judgment dated 13th March, 2000.
These appeals filed by Shri Pradeep Anand, son of late Shri C.L.Anand are directed against the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi on the interim application No.7558/98 in OMPNo.197/98 by the learned single Judge and the order passed by the Division Bench in FAO OS No.134/99 dismissing the appeal.
The arbitrator after companysidering the case set out by the parties passed the partial award on 24th April, 1998 at Mumbai.
While Suit No.1084 A of 1998 filed by respondent number1 was pending the said respondent filed OMP No.197 of 1998 under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act inter alia challenging the legality and validity of the Co operation Agreement dated 11.9.1990.
The award of the arbitrator s shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto.
The respondent number1 also filed IA No.7558 of 1998 seeking stay of further arbitration proceedings alleging certain illegalities in the procedure followed by the arbitrator which, according to it had vitiated the award passed by the arbitrator.
The appellant herein refuted the allegations and companytentions raised on behalf of the respondent number1 in the companynter affidavit.
Article 11 in which was dealt with Duration of the agreement, it was stated a Toshiba Anand is wound up or otherwise than for amalgamation or reconstruction approved by the parties hereto, or b This agreement is terminated by mutual agreement in writing of the parties hereto.
Vide an interim order dated 20th March, 1997, ITC Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, TBCL and Toshiba Anand were arraigned as defendants 1 to 4 respectively in the arbitration proceedings.
P.MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
In Article 5 of the agreement the following stipulation was made It is agreed to release all personal guarantees given by Shri Anand and Shri Pradeep Anand to the bankers and financial institutions on behalf of Toshiba Anand with assistance and companyperation by ITC or its associates or by its friends and or by Toshiba and or by TBCL as soon as possible but number later than 31st March, 1991.
