Heard by consent finally.

2. The petitioner has invoked section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "Arbitration Act") for interim measures and reliefs against the respondent in view of various breaches committed by the respondent under the Intra-Circle Roaming Framework Agreement dated 15th March, 2011 (ICRFA).

3. There exists an arbitration clause in the agreement. The basic clause is as under:

"24.3. A Dispute that remains unresolved for sixty (60) Business Days of the same arising, shall be finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by a panel consisting of three (3) arbitrators. Each of the Parties shall appoint one (1) arbitrator and the two (2) arbitrators so appointed shall appoint the third arbitrator.

24.9. Subject to the provisions of Clause 24.3, the courts of Mumbai, India shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to any Dispute."

4. The basic prayers of the petitioner is as under :

"(a) Direct the Respondent to provide appropriate security in the form of Bank Guarantee or asset to secure the payments towards the services provided by the Petitioner.

(b) In the interim pending disposal of this petition, the Respondent be directed to pay Post Dates Cheques as also charge on the bank account by way of attachment to the extent of the dues."

5. As per the agreement the respondent was under obligation to pay the minimum commitment charges (MCC). The respondent provided the MCC for the quarter May June 2011 in terms of the ICRFA. The respondent failed to provide the MCC for the August -October 2011. Therefore, the petitioner vide its email dated 20th July 2011 demanded for the MCC. The petitioner again demanded the respondent to provide Post Dated Cheques (PDC's) towards MCC. However, the respondent vide its email dated 3rd August, 2011 refused to comply with its obligation to issue PDCs. The petitioner vide its email dated 19th August, 2011 notified the respondent regarding the delay in payment beyond the due date. The petitioner vide its emails dated 24th August, 2011 notified the respondent about the breaches of ICRFA. In response to the above email, the respondent did not dispute the above outstanding, but sought extension in payment vide email dated 29th August, 2011. The petitioner, previously known as Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd., has changed to Vodafone Spacetel Ltd. with effect from 13th October, 2011. In view of the above, the petitioner was constrained to issue Notice for Termination dated 28th October, 2011 ("Termination Letter") to the respondent. The respondent not responded to the Termination Letter till date. The petitioner has encashed the bank guarantees provided by the Respondent on account of above breaches. It is stated that ICRFA would stand terminated upon expiry of six (6) months from the date of receipt of Termination Letter, which will expire in May 2012. Therefore, the petitioner is under the obligation to provide services till the expiry of such notice period. The petitioner submitted that the respondent is not in a position to clear outstanding and future invoices. Hence the present petition seeking for direction to provide the security by way of a Bank Guarantee and or asset to secure payments under the future invoices to be raise by Petitioner till the actual termination of the ICRFA.

6. The respondent resisted the same by filing reply dated 27th February, 2010. The preliminary objection was raised stating that as the respondent is situated outside jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition. The petitioner has already invoked four bank guarantees aggregating to Rs.11,93,89,388/-, on 22.12.2011; and more than 95% of its purported claim have already been satisfied; and no amounts are due and payable; and there was excess invocation of the bank guarantees, therefore, a reconciliation of the account needs to be followed.