2000 (3) TMI 1100 - HC - Indian Laws

Court emphasizes access to justice in international arbitrations, rejects challenge to petition maintainability, upholds jurisdiction

The Court rejected the challenge to the maintainability of the Petition, emphasizing access to justice and a permissive interpretation of the Act for ... - Issues:1. Maintainability of the petition under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OMP 200/99 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. Jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 9 of the Act for international arbitrations.3. Applicability of Part I of the Act to international arbitrations.Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OMP 200/99 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the Petition itself, arguing that the disputes were already being adjudicated in London before an arbitrator. The Court had granted an injunction even though the proceedings were pending outside India, in accordance with the arbitration clause between the parties. The Respondent contended that the Court should await the passing of the Award in London before considering orders for providing security. Previous decisions by Single Benches of the Court were cited to support the argument against the maintainability of the Petition.Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Indian courts under Section 9 of the Act for international arbitrations.The Respondent argued that the Court should not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act as the venue of arbitration was in England, and English Law was applicable. It was emphasized that Section 9 of the Act applied only to domestic arbitrations and did not vest extra-territorial powers with the Court. The Respondent suggested that the Court must await the passing of the Award in London before considering any orders. Various foreign judgments were cited to support the argument that orders should be passed by Courts in London, the venue of arbitration. However, the Court leaned towards an interpretation that is permissive rather than restrictive, highlighting the importance of access to Court for redressal of grievances.Issue 3: Applicability of Part I of the Act to international arbitrations.The Court analyzed precedents and provisions of the Act to determine the applicability of Part I to international arbitrations. It was argued that Part I should apply to all arbitrations and proceedings relating thereto, including international commercial arbitrations. The Court emphasized the pivotal role of Courts in the administration of arbitration and rejected the notion that Part I applied only to domestic arbitrations. The judgment highlighted the importance of territorial jurisdiction and the need to avoid declining relief on technicalities. The Court rejected the argument that the proper forum for obtaining interim relief would be English Courts, emphasizing the visibility of territorial jurisdiction in the case at hand.In conclusion, the Court rejected the application challenging the maintainability of the Petition, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and the need for a permissive interpretation of the Act regarding international arbitrations. The judgment underscored the pivotal role of Courts in the administration of arbitration and the significance of territorial jurisdiction in granting relief.