JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.59 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India (appellant herein) challenging the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Single Judge in OMP No.693 of 2013 and order dated 20.01.2016 in Review Petition No.400 of 2015 in OMP No.693 of 2013.

3) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, few relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass, need to be stated hereinbelow.

4) This appeal arises out of the proceedings (OMP 693/2013) filed by the appellant (Union of India) against the respondent-Company under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appellant had challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the award made by the arbitrators in respondent's favour in one international commercial arbitration proceeding between the appellant (Union of India) and the respondent (foreign company).

5) The respondent contested the appellant's application by raising several objections. One such preliminary objection, which went to the root of the application, was in relation to the maintainability of appellant's application filed under Section 34 of the Act in Courts in India.

6) According to the respondent, the Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application filed under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the legality and correctness of an award in question.

7) The Single Judge by order dated 09.07.2015 upheld the respondent's preliminary objection and held that keeping in view the terms of the agreement in question coupled with the law laid down by this Court in several decisions governing the issues arising in the case, Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act to question the legality and correctness of the award in question and accordingly dismissed the appellant's application as being not maintainable in Indian Courts.

8) Since the appellant's application was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Indian Courts, the Single Judge did not consider it necessary to decide the issues arising in the case on the merits.

9) The appellant (Union of India) felt aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, filed appeal under Section 37(2) of the Act before the Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi.

10) By impugned judgment, the Division Bench concurred with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge and held that the Indian Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application under Section 34 of the Act to question the legality of award rendered in international commercial arbitration proceedings.

11) It is against this order, the Union of India felt aggrieved and has filed the present appeal by special leave in this Court.

12) Heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

13) At the outset, we may state that Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned ASG appearing for the appellant (Union of India) and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent very ably presented their respective arguments in support of their case. The arguments indeed lasted for few months in intervals with lucidity.

14) In their submissions, both the learned senior counsel argued on almost every issue, which has arisen in the appeal directly, indirectly and even remotely.

15) Learned counsel, in support of their submissions, cited almost every decision of this Court including English Courts decisions which dealt with the subject and the issues arising in this case and made sincere attempt to either distinguish or/and place reliance on them to show how and why these decisions apply to the fa