JUDGMENT

B.P. Colabawalla, J. - Admit. The paper book is dispensed with. By consent of parties, the appeal is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and Order dated 15th September, 2017 (for short, the "impugned order") passed by the learned Single Judge (Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. R. Shriram) in an Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"). The Petition came to be filed before the learned Single Judge, challenging the award dated 11th September, 2015 by which the appellant''s claim against the respondents was dismissed by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitration Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge only on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. To put it in a nutshell, the jurisdiction of the Court was challenged on the ground that the award being a foreign award and the juridical seat of arbitration being outside India as well as the law governing the arbitration agreement being Foreign Law, Part-I of the Act was impliedly excluded, and therefore, the award could not be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. Since, the preliminary objection was upheld by the learned Single Judge, there is no discussion to the challenge to the award on merits. Even before us, the only challenge that has been raised is with reference to the jurisdictional aspect, namely, whether the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal could be challenged in this Court under Section 34 of the Act. Before we set out and deal with the legal submissions of the parties, it would be apposite to set out some bare and necessary facts.

3. The appellant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius and is inter alia engaged in the business of making investments. The appellant was the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal and the Petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are limited liability companies constituted under the laws of the State of Delaware in the United States of America. Respondent No.2, Standard Chartered Bank (Mauritius) Ltd., is a company organized under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius. It is wholly owned by a company registered under the Laws of England and Wales - respondent No.5.

Respondent No.4 is a Standard Chartered PLC, a public limited Company registered under the Laws of England & Wales and respondent No.5 is the Standard Chartered Bank, an international banking company registered under the Laws of England & Wales. Respondent No.6 - Sub-continental Equities Ltd., is a company organized under the laws of Republic of Mauritius.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 had entered into an Escrow and Transaction Settlement Agreement dated 12th May, 2007 (for short the "Escrow Agreement") primarily for the purpose of placing the equity shares of one Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. (for short "TMB") with purchasers who were compliant with the provisions of Indian Law, particularly the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short the "BR Act") and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short the "FEMA, 1999") and the rules, regulations, notifications, circulars and guidelines issued thereunder. According to the appellant, under the Escrow Agreement, respondent Nos.1 and 2, acting in concert with respondent Nos.3 to 6, engaged in willful suppression, gross misrepresentation and perpetrated an egregious fraud on the appellant with the primary objective of defeating the sanctity of the Indian Laws which, according to the appellant, govern the Escrow Agreement. According to the appellant, the respondents circumvented the provisions of the BR Act, FEMA, the RBI Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (for short the "PML Act") and the Securities Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the "SEBI Act"). In light of these alleged