JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has assailed an order restraining a foreign seated arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC for short).

2. Such judicial intervention was granted by the Learned Single Judge merely because the respondent/plaintiff had challenged the existence of the matrix contract between the parties and, under such circumstances, it would be financially burdensome to the latter to approach the tribunal at Singapore. In the impugned order, the Judge had not recorded this prima facie satisfaction with regard to the non-existence of the parent contract, far less the arbitration agreement. Challenge to the institution of an international arbitration under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) is maintainable on very limited grounds as envisaged in Section 45 thereof. Section 45 reads as follows :

“Section 45 : Power of judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration – Notwithstanding anything contained in Part I or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a judicial authority, when seized of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have made an agreement referr