(Mohit S. Shah, CJ.)

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16 October 2006, of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's arbitration petition under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Arbitration Act"). By the said petition, the appellant challenged the Final Award dated 10 April 2006. The Award was rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal and the seat of arbitration was London. The learned single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act was not maintainable as the impugned Award is a foreign Award and, therefore, Part-I of the Indian Arbitration Act would not apply.

2. In view of the above finding of the learned single Judge and the fact that the section 34 petition was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties only on the question of maintainability of the petition under section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act and not on merits of the dispute between the parties.

3. The background facts broadly stated are that a dispute arose out of a failed attempt by the parties to establish a private commercial bank "The Joint Venture Bank (India)". The appellant and two other persons were to be the Indian partners in this venture and the respondent-bank was to be the overseas party. Negotiations between the parties led to drafting the Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) and the Shareholders Agreement (SHA) and draft Articles of Association (AOA) of the proposed Joint Venture Bank. The appellant's claim was that it was a material term of alleged agreements between the Indian partners and the bank that the appellant would be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the proposed Joint Venture Bank but by its actions and conduct, the respondent was in repudiatory breach of the agreements. The respondent contended that the agreements were merely draft and were of no legal force or effect and that the terms of the AOA were never agreed. The notice of arbitration was given under both SHA and SSA. There was a slight difference in the arbitration clauses in the two agreements, but in material respects, the terms were identical. The difference was only concerning the time limit within which the party may nominate an arbitrator in case the other party fails to do so. Article 12.3 of the SSA provided for the agreement to arbitrate in the following terms:

"Governing law and Consent to Jurisdiction Arbitration.

(a) This Agreement and all questions of its interpretation shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of India without regard to its principles of conflicts of law.

(b) The Parties agree that they shall attempt to resolve through good faith consultation in their behalf, disputes arising in connection with this Agreement, and such consultation shall begin promptly after a Party has delivered to another Party a written request for such consultation.

(c) In the event that after exhausting the efforts for resolution of disputes described in paragraph (b), the parties have been unable to resolve a dispute, and if the dispute is one which relates to an alleged breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement under, or the validity or termination of this Agreement, such dispute shall be finally settled according to the procedure set forth in paragraph (d).

(d) A dispute subject to resolution under this paragraph (d) shall be finally settled by binding arbitration in London in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, as at force on the day of the execution of this Agreement to a panel of three arbitrators, where one arbitrator is to be appointed by each of Rabo and the Indian Partners. In the event either of Rabo or the Indian Partners fail to appoint their choice of the arbitrator within 3 days of the other party appointing their Arbitrator, then the Party that has already appointed one arbitrator shall