Judgment

S. C. AGRAWAL, J.:- Since these Special Leave Petitions arise out of the same proceedings in the High Court they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. R. M. Investment & Trading Co. Pvt. Limited (for short "R.M.I."), the petitioner in these petitions, is a company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Sometime in or around 1986, R.M.I. entered into an agreement with Boeing Company (for short "Boeing"), a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States of America, where under R.M.I. agreed to provide Boeing with consultant services for promotion of sale of Boeing aircrafts in India. "The said agreement was initially to be operative till December 31, 1986, but by subsequent agreement it was extended till April 30, 1987. In August, 1987, Definitive Purchase Agreements for purchase of two aircrafts were executed between Boeing and Air India. a body corporate constituted under the Air Corporation Act, 1953. R.M.I. claimed commission from Boeing on the said transaction but Boeing refused to pay the same and thereupon in April, 1990, R.M.I. filed a suit [Suit No. 363 of 1990] on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court against Boeing for the recovery of U.S. S 17.5 million equivalent to Rs. 10,07,12,500,00/ -by way of compensation and remuneration on the basis of the Consultant Services Agreement along with other incidental reliefs. The Consultant Services Agreement contained (in paragraph 10) an arbitration clause which provides that "any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or any breach thereof which the parties have not been able with due diligence to settle amicably, shall be settled by arbitration conducted in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association." In the said suit R.M.I. filed an application for in junction and an interim order was passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court on July 17, 1992, whereby it was directed that if any payment is made by Air India to Boeing, Boeing shall retain a sum of U.S. $ 17.5 million with Air India. On August 13, 1992, Boeing moved an application under Section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the stay of the said suit on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit was covered by the arbitration clause and that Boeing was willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct of the arbitration. On the same date R.M.I. filed an application for amendment of the plaint and for addition of Air India as a party defendant to the suit. On August 14, 1992, learned trial Judge passed an order staying the suit and all proceedings except the pending interlocutory application. On August 18, 1992, Boeing moved an application for vacating the interim order passed on July 17, 1992. By order dated April 5, 1993, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application filed by Boeing for staying the suit. Boeing filed an appeal No. 295 of 1993 against the said order of the learned trial Judge. The said appeal has been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by Judgment dated October 14, 1993. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20139 of 1993 is directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

3. By order dated July 30, 1993, the application for amendment as well as for addition of Air India as a party was allowed by the learned trial Judge. Boeing and Air India filed separate appeals [Appeals Nos. 606 & 607 of 1993 respectively] against the said order of learned Judge. Both the appeals have been allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated December 21, 1993. Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 121-22 of 1994 are directed against the said Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.

4. We have heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, the learned senior counsel appearing for R.M.I., and Shri N.A. Palkhivala and Shri N. N. Gooptu, learned senior counsel appeari