9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rated under the name and style of "FSUE Promexport" and the said "FSUE Promexport" subsequently merged with the Repondent ROSOBORONEXPORT. Consequently, all the contractual rights and liabilities of M/s Russian Technologies vested in ROSOBORONEXPORT, the respondent herein. All the three entities have been/are owned by the Government of Russia. The registered office of M/s ROSOBORONEXPORT is 27/3, Stromynika STR Moscow, 107076. That between October 1999 and April 2000 M/s Russian Technologies approached the petitioner for procuring orders in India for supply of helicopters to Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The petitioner agreed to act as the Agent of the said Russian Enterprise, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein for procuring contracts in India for supply of helicopters for the BSF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, was approached and the Indian Authorities were persuaded to select the helicopters manufactured by M/s Kazan Helicopters Ltd. which was to be supplied by M/s Russian Technologies as acceptable to the Border Security Force. The petitioner through it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its commission from the amount received from Border Security Force of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India for the goods delivered or services rendered to it with the petitioner's assistance. The quantum of commission under the said agreement was fixed at 16% of the payments which would be made by the Government of India to M/s Russian Technologies. The petitioner acted as an Agent on behalf of the Russian Technologies and thereafter on behalf of the respondent and facilitated execution of a contract for supply of six helicopters to Border Security Force of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India against payment of a total sum of Rs.180 crores of which a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in March 2000 and a letter of credit was opened on June, 2003. It is alleged that because of the petitioner's efforts, the contract for supply of six helicopters by M/s Russian Technologies, which subsequently merged with M/s ROSOBORONEXPORT became possible. The Petitioner came to know that the helicopters would be supplied by M/s ROSOBORONEXPORT to the Government of India by the end of 2003. Therefore petitioner reminded the respondent about their obligation to pay 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court on 12.1.2004 and order dated 12.12.2003 was modified. Thereafter on 17.03.2004 the claimant invoked arbitration clause in view of the differences and disputes existing between the parties and called upon the respondent to act as per the agreement within 30 days from the receipt of the notice failing which the claimant would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal action against the respondent. Thereafter on completion of pleadings of the parties on 25.05.2005 learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court after hearing parties dismissed the petition. Thereafter petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the Division Bench issued notice in the matter on 27.5.2004 and the said appeal is pending adjudication before the Division Bench. In this background petitioner approached this Court by filing petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that is how the matter has come before me on designation by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. The respondent opposed the petition by filing a detailed reply and one of the principal submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent was that Clause 6.2 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or the designated judge will have the right to decide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. These will be, his own jurisdiction, to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. The Chief Justice or the judge designated would be entitled to seek the opinion of an institution in the matter of nominating an arbitrator qualified in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act if the need arises but the order appointing the arbitrator could only be that of the Chief Justice or the judge designate. v) Designation of a district judge as the authority under Section 11(6) of the Act by the Chief Justice of the High Court is not warranted on the scheme of the Act. vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
