In 2000, disputes arose between the respondents and the companytractor with respect to companyrectness of certain companyt recoveries and profit.
Respondent No.2 is an arm of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
17.3.2004 Case No.3 of 2003 fixed for recording of evidence from 3.6.2004 to 9.6.2004.
The arbitral tribunal fixed 28.3.2003 as the date of hearing at Kuala Lumpur Malaysia , but due to outbreak of epidemic SARS, the arbitral tribunal shifted the venue of its sittings to Amsterdam in the first instance and, thereafter, to London.
The appellant objected to the maintainability of OMP No.255 of 2006 and pleaded that the Courts in India do number have the jurisdiction to entertain challenge to the arbitral award.
Thereafter, the following proceedings were held by the arbitral tribunal at London 6.2.2004 Interim Award pronounced in Case No.1 of 2003 pronounced.
At that stage, the respondents filed OMP No.255 of 2006 under Section 9 of the Act in Delhi High Court for stay of the arbitral proceedings.
On 19.8.2003, the arbitral tribunal issued revised time schedule for filing of the statement of claim, reply and companynter claim, reply to companynter claim, documents, affidavit of admission and denial of documents in Arbitration Case No.3 of 2003 and fixed the case for further proceedings to be held at London on 12.12.2003.
Parties will deposit Rs.25,000 each as administrative companyt with the Presiding Arbitrator.
By another order dated 30.10.2003, the arbitral tribunal directed that the hearing of the application filed by the claimants for taking on record the supplementary claim will take place at London on 15.11.2003, on which date, the following order was passed in Arbitration Case No.3 of 2003 By companysent of parties, seat of the Arbitration is shifted to London.
On being numbericed, the appellant questioned the maintainability of the case before the High Court of Malaysia by companytending that in view of clause 34.12 of the PSC only the English Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to the award.
31.3.2005 Partial award passed in Case No.3 of 2003.
On 28.10.1994, a PSC was executed between respondent No.1 on the one hand and a companysortium of four companypanies companysisting of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Videocon Petroleum Limited, Command Petroleum India Private Limited and Ravva Oil Singapore Private Limited hereinafter referred to as the Contractor in terms of which the latter was granted an exploration licence and mining lease to explore and produce the hydro carbon resources owned by respondent No.1.
After filing the petition before the High Court of Malaysia, the respondents made a request to the tribunal to companyduct the remaining arbitral proceedings at Kuala Lumpur, but their request was rejected vide order dated 20.4.2006 and it was declared that the remaining arbitral proceedings will be held in London.
17.3.2004 Case No.3 of 2003 fixed for arguments from 20 26.7.2004.
Respondent No.1 challenged partial award dated 31.3.2005 by filing a petition in the High Court of Malaysia at Kuala Lumpur.
Subsequently, Cairn Energy U.K. was substituted in place of Command Petroleum India Private Limited and the name of the Videocon Petroleum Limited was changed to Petrocon India Limited, which merged the appellant Videocon Industries Limited.
They filed another OMP No.329 of 2006 questioning award dated 31.3.2005 on the issue of exchange rate.
On the next day, the arbitral tribunal issued similar directions in Arbitration Case Nos.2 and 3 of 2003.
In its meeting held on 29.6.2003 at Amsterdam, the arbitral tribunal issued various directions in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2003.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Whether the Delhi High Court companyld entertain the petition filed by the respondents under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the Act for grant of a declaration that Kuala Lumpur Malaysia is companytractual and juridical seat of arbitration and for issue of a direction to the arbitral tribunal to companytinue the hearing at Kuala Lumpur in terms of clause 34 of Production Sharing Contract PSC is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal.
Respondent No.1 Government of India owns petroleum resources within the area of Indias territorial waters and exclusive economic zones.
Since the parties companyld number resolve their disputes amicably, the same were referred to the arbitral tribunal under clause 34.3 of the PSC.
