R.D. Dhanuka JUDGMENT
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. Arbitration Petition No. 1359 of 2010 and the Arbitration Petition No. 1360 of 2010 are filed by the petitioner under Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for declaration that the foreign awards both dated 16th February 2010 are enforceable as decrees of this Court and for direction to enforce and/or execute the said two awards as decrees in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
2. Chamber Summons Nos. 639 of 2011 and 638 of 2011 are filed by the petitioner in the arbitration petitions respectively for an order and direction to the respondent to disclose the details of various assets, all pending litigations, list of all creditors, debtors etc. and for furnishing security in favour of the petitioner, for an injunction and for attachment of the assets.
3. Notices of Motion No. 373 of 2013 and 374 of 2013 are filed by the respondent inter alia praying for dismissal of the Arbitration Petition Nos. 1359 of 2010 and 1360 of 2010 respectively. Notices of Motion No. 657 of 2014 and 656 of 2014 are filed by the petitioner inter alia praying for an injunction against the respondent from proceeding with or prosecuting with the Miscellaneous Application Nos. 196 of 2013 and 284 of 2013 in BIFR Case No. 34/2011 filed by the respondent against the petitioner respectively. By consent of parties, all the aforesaid proceedings were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment.
4. Arbitration Petition No. 1359 of 2010 has been filed for enforcement of the foreign award dated 16th February 2010 arising out of the dispute between the parties under COA dated 12th April 2008. The Arbitration Petition No. 1360 of 2010 has been filed for enforcement of the foreign award dated 16th February 2010 arising out of the dispute between the parties under COA dated 4th April 2008.
5. Some of the relevant facts in Arbitration Petition No. 1359 of 2010 are set out hereinafter which was argued as a main matter by the learned senior counsel for both the parties. The facts of the Arbitration Petition No. 1360 of 2010 are similar to the facts in Arbitration Petition No. 1359 of 2010.
6. By a Contract of affreightment dated 12th April 2008 based on an amended Gencon Form with additional clauses, the petitioner as owner or disponent owner contracted with the respondent as charterer for the carriage of 32 cargoes on the terms and conditions therein. It was the case of the petitioner that by its email dated 30th September 2008, the respondent sought to terminate the contract falsely alleging frustration and/or force majeure for the reasons stated therein. The petitioner disputed the termination maintaining that there was no justification on the part of the respondent to terminate the said contract. On 4th November 2008, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement recorded at clause 28 of the said contract. Clause 28 of the said contract is extracted as under :-
"Clause 28 :
Any dispute arising under this C.O.A. is to be settled and referred to Arbitration in London. One Arbitrator to be employed by the Charterers and one by the Owners and in case they shall not agree then shall appoint an Umpire whose decision shall be final and binding, the Arbitrators and Umpire to be........