Ashok Bhushan JUDGMENT
S.A. Bobde, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant-Imax Corporation has challenged the interim order dated 10.06.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Notice of Motion No. 2560 of 2008 in the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No. 525 of 2008.
3. By the aforementioned order, the High Court held that the petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Arbitration Act") filed by the Respondent-M/S E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd. against two partial final awards dated 11.02.2006, 24.08.2007, and third final award dated 27.03.2008 was maintainable.
The Appellant had objected to the maintainability of the petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the arbitration Clause excluded the applicability of Part-I which contains the said section.
4. The only issue before us is whether the petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable before a court in India, and in this case, the Bombay High Court.
5. On 28.09.2000, the Appellant entered into an agreement with the Respondent for a supply of large format projection systems for cinema theatres to be installed in theatres all across India. Clause 14 of the agreement contained an arbitration Clause which reads as follows:
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of Singapore, and the parties attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of Singapore. Any dispute arising out of this master agreement or concerning the rights, duties or liabilities of E-City or Imax hereunder shall be finally settled by arbitration pursuant to the ICC Rules of Arbitration.
6. On 16.06.2004, the Appellant filed a request for arbitration with the ICC, and claimed damages. On 08.10.2004, the ICC i.e. the chosen arbitral forum fixed London as the place of arbitration i.e. the juridical seat of arbitration, after consulting the parties.
FIRST PARTIAL FINAL AWARD
7. On 11.02.2006, the first partial final award was made in favour of the Appellant declaring that the Respondent was in breach of the agreement and therefore liable for damages. The award stated that the decision on the other issues, including damages/costs would be reserved for a future award.
8. The aforementioned declaration was made after observing in the award that the court of the ICC had decided to fix London as the juridical seat of arbitration in accordance with the powers vested in the court Under Article 14(1) of the ICC Rules. The observation read as follows:
As well be noticed, no provision was made for a venue for any arbitration contemplated by Clause 14, but subsequently the court of the ICC decided on the 8th of October, 2004 to fix London as the juridical seat of the arbitration in accordance with the powers vested in the court Under Article 14 of the ICC Rules. Accordingly, this is an arbitration to which Part-I of the English Arbitration Act 1996 applies.