The appellant carries on its business of manufacturing printing machines in Germany.
However, UTPE No.
But in case of failure all disputes arising in companynection with this Contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the Rules.
In November, 1997 the respondent No.
The appellant had raised objections to the Commissions jurisdiction to entertain the respondents application for companypensation.
It was off loaded at Mumbai on 5th August 1994 and cleared by the respondent No.1 from the customs warehouse on 22nd April 1997.
The machine was shipped by the appellant from Germany to Mumbai on 16th June 1994.
Compensation Application CA No.
Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry UTPE No.
It was incorporated under German Law and has its registered office at Offenbach, Main, Germany.
This was accepted by the respondent No.
1 outside India.
On the same date, the appellant acknowledged receipt of the order and the fact of sale of the machine subject to, inter alia, the following companydition XVI.
The respondent No.
The venue of such Arbitration shall be Paris France and the proceedings shall be companyducted in English language.
The memorandum of understanding executed between the appellant and the respondent NO.1 on 21st December 1993 companytained a clause to the following effect Arbitration As claims and disputes arising out of the Contract shall be settled amicably between the parties as far as possible.
Pursuant to the agreement a printing machine was sold to the respondent No.1 by the appellant.
13 crores towards the companyt of the machine, customs duty paid by respondent No.1 on the machine interest on the companyt and customs duty and damages.
388 of 1997 in effect companyplaining of unfair trade practices by the appellant and the respondent No.2 relating to the supply of the printing machine.
1s letter dated 2nd February 1994 to the appellant.
383 of 1997 was filed claiming over Rs.
1 on 24th January 1994 to sell the printing machine.
The Commission rejected both the submissions of the appellant.
388 of 1997 was withdrawn in August 1999.
The second ground on which the jurisdiction of the Commission was questioned by the appellant was that the appellant neither provided any service number carried on any trade or trade practice in India for the purpose of the Act and even the machine in question had been sold to the respondent No.
Pursuant to this memorandum, a formal offer was sent by the appellant to respondent No.
1 filed two applications before the Commission viz.
1 and the respondent No.2 have their registered offices at Mumbai.
RUMA PAL, J. The appellant has challenged the order of the Commission set up under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 referred to as the Act by which the Commission held it had the jurisdiction to entertain the respondents claim for companypensation under Section 12 B of the Act against the appellant and the respondent No.2.
