(Per D.S.R. Varma, J.)

Heard both sides.

2. This City Civil Court Appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 28-12-2006, passed by the I Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, allowing the application I.A.No.2042 of 2006 in O.S.No.80 of 2006, and rejecting the plaint, while exercising its jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants, in the suit, before the Court below.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

5. The basic facts, which are relevant, are that the plaintiff - Venture Global Engineering, is a registered company, having its principal offices at 33662, James J Pampo Drive, Fraser Michigan, United States of America (for brevity “the U.S.A”). The defendant No.1-Sat yam Computer Services Limited, is also a registered company, having its office at Mayfair Centre, S.P. Road, Secunderabad. These two companies constitute the defendant No.2, which is a joint venture company, under the name and style of M/s Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, is a registered company, having its office at 1-8-301-306, III Floor, Ashoka My Home Chambers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad, having 50 per cent shareholders each. The said joint venture was originated by way of a joint venture agreement and a shareholders agreement, dated 20-10-1999, admittedly, governed by the Laws of the State of Michigan, U.S.A, whereby there is an arbitration clause to the effect that the disputes are to be resolved by way of arbitration before the London Court of International Arbitration (for brevity the LCIA). The Section 11.05 of the shareholders agreement provides for certain terms and condition as regards the resolution of the disputes.

6. Be that as it may, the defendant No.1 had issued a notice, in the month of February, 2005, to have shares of the plaintiff transferred on its name, in view of the alleged bankruptcy of the plaintiff and invoked the arbitration clause and submitted to the jurisdiction of the LCIA, wherein the arbitration proceedings were held at London and an order was also passed on 3-4-2006, granting a relief as under:

“A. I order VGE to deliver to Sat yam share certificates in form suitable for immediate transfer to Sat yam or its designee evidencing all of VGEs ownership (legal and/or beneficial) in SVESA further order it to do all that may otherwise be necessary to effect the transfer of such ownership to Sat yam or its designee.

B. Concurrently with the transfer of ownership described in Section 6.1 A above, I order Sat yam to pay VGE US $ 622, 656 such sum being the net difference between the amount (plus interest) and the amount payable by VGE to Sat yam for the disgorgement of royalties paid to VG E by SVES (plus interest).

C. I order VGE to pay Sat yam GBP 48, 777.48, the costs of the Arbitration, as determined by the LCIA Court.

D. I order VGE to pay to Satyam US $1,488,454.11 Sat yams additional costs as determined in Section 5.12 hereof.

E. I order VGE to pay Sat yam interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum compounded annually on the unpaid balance of the sums set forth in Section 6.1 C and D hereof until such sums are paid.

F. I declare that Sat yam is released from its obligation under the (Non Compete Agreement) not to compete with SVES or VGE with respect to engineering services to the automotive industry (Award Clause 6.1 ).”

7. On 14-4-2006, the defendant No.1 had filed a petition, seeking enforcement of the Foreign Arbitration Award, passed by LCIA in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Pursuant to the said proceedings, on July 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court passed its final Judgment.

8. From the plaint averments, it is further seen that a cross-petition, to refuse and deny the enforcement of the Award, was also filed before the said Court and as on the date of