(SC ), 2002 (1 )ARBLR675 (SC ), (2002 )2 CompLJ361 (SC ), (2002 )II CompLJ361 (SC ), 2002 INSC 138 , 2003 (1 )JLJ264 (SC), JT2002 (3 )SC 150 , 2002 -3 -LW440 , (2002 )2 MLJ175 (SC ), 2002 (2 )MPHT437 , 2002 (3 )PLJR26 , 2002 (2 )RCR(Civil)474 , 2002 (2 )SCALE612 , (2002 )4 SCC105 , [2002 ]37 SCL434 (SC ), [2002 ]2 SCR411 , 2002 (1 )UC648 , 2002 (1 )UJ660 , ,MANU/SC/0185/2002
G.B. Pattanaik#S.N. Phukan#S.N. Variava#3MANU/SC/0722/2012292SC3290Judgment/OrderAIR#ALD#ArbLR#CompLJ#CompLJ#INSC#JLJ#JT#LW#MANU#MLJ#MPHT#PLJR#RCR (Civil)#SCALE#SCC#SCL#SCR#UC#UJS.N. Variava,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Just And Convenient,Interim Measures by Court,Arbitration Agreement,Legislative Intention,Basic Principles,Legislative Intention,Basic Principles,Avoidance of anomaly,Regard to consequences,Guiding Rules,Avoidance of anomaly,Regard to consequences,Guiding Rules,Natural and grammatical meaning,Rule Of Literal Construction,Guiding Rules,Avoid addition or substitution of words,Language Of The Statute Should Be Read As It Is,Guiding Rules,Place of Arbitration: Lex Arbitri,Definitions,General Concept,Jurisdiction of Court,Interim Measures by Court,Arbitration Agreement,Public Policy,Application for setting aside arbitral award,Recourse Against Arbitral Award,Foreign Award,Definitions,New York Convention Awards,Law of Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation,Interpretation of Statutes290,281,328,329,331,299,322,1148,1147,1158,1159,284,278,289,312,334,1154,335,1155,321 -->
MANU/SC/0185/2002
True Court CopyTM EnglishUC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (civil) 6527 of 2001
Decided On: 13.03.2002
Appellants: Bhatia International Vs. Respondent: Bulk Trading S.A. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.B. Pattanaik, S.N. Phukan and S.N. Variava JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.
1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 10th October, 2000 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
The Appellant entered into a contract with the 1st Respondent on 9th May, 1997. This contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that arbitration was to be as per the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short ICC). On 23rd October, 1997 the 1st Respondent filed a request for arbitration with ICC. Parties agreed that the arbitration be held in Paris, France. ICC has appointed a sole arbitrator.
3. 1st Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the said Act) before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Indore, M.P. against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. One of the interim reliefs sought was an order of injunction restraining these parties from alienating, transferring and/or creating third party right, disposing of, dealing with and/or selling their business assets and properties. The Appellant raised the plea of maintainability of such an application. The Appellant contended that Part I of the said Act would not apply to arbitrations where the place of arbitration is not in India. This application was dismissed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge on 1st February, 2000. It was held that the Court at Indore had jurisdiction and the application was maintainable. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. The said Writ Petition has been d........