R.D. Dhanuka JUDGMENT
R.D. Dhanuka, J.
1. By these two petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners have impugned the arbitral awards dated 27th September 2014 and 17th December 2012 respectively in Arbitration No. 088 of 2012 in Arbitration Petition No. 690 of 2015, and the partial final award on jurisdiction dated 15th March 2013, partial final award on liability and reliefs (excluding costs) dated 3rd November 2013 read with final award on costs dated 2nd September 2014 passed by the arbitral tribunal in Arbitration No. 089 of 2012 in Arbitration Petition No. 757 of 2015 allowing some of the claims made by the respondent.
2. The respondent has raised an issue of maintainability of these two petitions on the ground that the parties had agreed that save for Section 9, Part I of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act shall not apply to the terms of the Share Subscription Agreement and on other grounds.
3 In view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondent on maintainability of these two petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court has heard the submissions of the learned senior counsel for both the parties on the maintainability of these two petitions at length. By consent of the parties, issue of maintainability raised in both these petitions is heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the issue of maintainability are as under :-
4. The petitioner no. 1 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Mumbai. The respondent is a Company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and has its registered office at Mauritius. The respondent is an investment holding company for the Principal Investments Asia Division of HSBC.
5. On 21st April 2011, the petitioners and the respondent entered into a Share Subscription Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "SSA"). Some of the relevant clauses of the said SSA, which are relied upon by both the parties, are extracted as under :-
"Clause 15
15. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of India without regard to applicable conflict of Laws principles.
Clause 16
16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
16.1 Arbitration
16.1.1 Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, interpretation, breach or termination shall be referred to and finally resolved by binding arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Rules in force at the date of this Agreement ("Rules"), which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause and as may be amended by the rest of this clause.
16.1.2 The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore ...
16.1.6 The parties waive any right to apply to any court of law and/or other judicial authority to determine any preliminary point of law and/or review any question of law and/or the merits, in so far as such waiver may be validly made. The parties shall not be deemed, however, to have waived any right to challenge any award on the ground that the tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction and/or the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award to the extent allowed by the law of the seat of the arbitration.
16.1.7 Nothing, in this Clause 16.1 shall be construed........