Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.H. Kapadia, C.J.I., A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The expanding need for international arbitration and divergent schools of thought, have provided new dimensions to the arbitration jurisprudence in the international field. The present case is an ideal example of invocation of arbitral reference in multiple, multi-party agreements with intrinsically interlinked causes of action, more so, where performance of ancillary agreements is substantially dependent upon effective execution of the principal agreement. The distinguished learned Counsel appearing for the parties have raised critical questions of law relatable to the facts of the present case which in the opinion of the Court are as follows :
(1) What is the ambit and scope of Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the 1996 Act')?
(2) Whether the principles enunciated in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Limited v. Jayesh H. Pandya MANU/SC/0310/2003 : (2003) 5 SCC 531, is the correct exposition of law?
(3) Whether in a case where multiple agreements are signed between different parties and where some contain an arbitration clause and others don't and further the parties are not identically common in proceedings before the Court (in a suit) and the arbitration agreement, a reference of disputes as a whole or in part can be made to the arbitral tribunal, more particularly, where the parties to an action are claiming under or through a party to the arbitration agreement?
(4) Whether bifurcation or splitting of parties or causes of action would be permissible, in absence of any specific provision for the same, in the 1996 Act?
3. Chloro Controls (India) Private Ltd., the Appellant herein, filed a suit on the original side of the High Court of Bombay being Suit No. 233 of 2004, for declaration that the joint venture agreements and supplementary collaboration agreement entered into between some of the parties are valid, subsisting and binding. It also sought a direction that the scope of business of the joint venture company, Respondent No. 5, set up under the said agreements includes the manufacture, sale, distribution and service of the entire range of chlorination equipments including the electro-chlorination equipment and claimed certain other reliefs as well, against the Defendants in that suit. The said parties took out two notices of motion, being Notice of Motion No. 553 of 2004 prior to and Notice of Motion No. 2382 of 2004 subsequent to the amendment of the plaint. In these notices of motion, the principal question that fell for consideration of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was whether the joint venture agreements between the parties related only to gas chlorination equipment or whether they included electro-chlorination equipment as well. The applicant had prayed for an order of restraint, preventing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the foreign collaborators, ........