JUDGMENT - S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.:---Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking to challenge an order dated 18th August, 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereby the learned Judge has referred both the parties to arbitration to settle their disputes involved in the case in accordance with the clauses in 21 of the share holder's agreement and clauses in 11 in share purchase agreement from the Arbitral Tribunal viz. the Arbitration Institute of Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, London. By the said order, the learned Judge has also stayed further proceedings in the suit till the passing of foreign Award by the Arbitral Tribunal.

3. The brief facts are that the petitioner herein and his family members had initially formed Drillco Hertel Ltd. in the year 1989. It may be noted here that now the said company is known as Drillco Seco (India) Ltd. The said company was formed for manufacturing Tungsten Carbide Tools. In the said manufacture of Tungsten Carbide Tools, Seco Tools AB Sweden, a Swedish Multinational Company is a World leader. The Seco Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., (S.T.I.P.) is a 100% subsidiary of the said Seco Tools AB Sweden. The petitioner has contended that the petitioner company had its own well laid out factory. It is the case of the petitioner that the said Swedish Multinational Company had applied to the Government of India for establishment of a 100% owned subsidiary with projected export production of atleast 60%.

4. In the year 1995 the Government of India had granted permission to the said Swedish Multinational Company to set up such subsidiary prescribing certain conditions therein. Sometime on or about 13th February, 1999 a joint venture between the petitioner's company and the Seco Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., (S.T.I.P.) and the Seco Tools AB Sweden was entered into. By the said agreement it was agreed that the said Swedish Multinational Company viz. Seco Tools AB Sweden will co-operate with the petitioner's company to develop its business operations. Under the said arrangement, certain shares were held by the petitioner company which were to be sold in exercise of "call option". There was proviso to the exercise of the said call option viz. the receipt of all necessary governmental and other permissions and licences were necessary for the acquisition by Seco India of the minority shares. On that very day, i.e. on 13th February, 1999 an employment agreement was also entered into, whereby the petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director at a salary of U.S. $ 10.470/- per month. On that day, the said Swedish Multinational Company had issued a guarantee letter to the petitioner for a proper performance of the obligations by Seco India. The said agreement also provided an arbitration clause being Clause 11.2.1 reads as under:---

"Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this agreement, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. The Arbitral Tribunal shall be composed of three arbitrators. The place of arbitration shall be London...."

5. It is also provided in the said agreement that the agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of India. However, it may be noted that the guarantee which was executed by the aforesaid Swedish Multinational Company was to be governed by the Swedish law.

6. As per the said arrangement, the petitioner had sold 9,01,000 shares for Rs. 15,80,00,000/- and the petitioner had continued to retain 9,00,000 shares and continued as the Managing Director. There is no dispute that the petitioner was paid sum of Rs. 4,35,10,000/- by way of an advance towards the purchase of aforesaid 9 lakh shares lying with him. It appears that the respondents herein had exercised their call option by a l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document