The main legal point established in the judgment is that the curial law being the ICC Rules and the juridical seat of arbitration being in Paris, France, Part I of the Arbitration Act does not apply, and the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application to set aside the Partial Final Award.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The judgment and order dated September 20, 2019 passed by the Single Bench in G.A No. 211 of 2017 filed in connection with A.P No. 1046 of 2016 is the subject matter of dispute in the instant appeal. The aforesaid application was filed challenging the Partial Final Award dated September 09, 2016 passed by the International Chambers of Commerce (ICC) in Paris, France u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

2. An agreement was entered into on January 12, 2002 for transfer of majority shareholding and control of Haldia Petrochemicals Limited (respondent no. 2) in favour of Chatterjee Petrochem (Mauritius) Co. (respondent no. 1) by the Government of West Bengal (appellant no. 1) and the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited (appellant no. 2).

3. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause which is adumbrated hereinafter:

"In respect of all disputes, differences, claims and questions between the parties hereto arising out of this JVA or in any way relating to this document or any term, condition or provision herein mentioned or construction or interpretation thereof as to the working of HPL or in any way relating to the business of the affairs of HPL, the parties shall first endeavour to settle such disputes, differences, claims or questions by friendly consultation and failing such settlement, disputes or differences will be settled in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration. The venue of Arbitration will be Paris and the law applicable to the contract will be Indian Law."

4. The dispute arose between the parties with regard to financial and managerial restructuring of the respondent no. 2 company and a proceeding was initiated in the Court concerning the oppression and mismanagement in relation to the conduct and affairs of the respondent no. 2. The matter ultimately reached to the Supreme Court and by a judgment dated September 30, 2019, the Supreme Court did not find the charges of oppression and mismanagement to be sustainable. It was further held in the said judgment that the parties have consciously entered into an agreement and are bound by it and the allegation as to the oppression and mismanagement has not been proved [Chatterjee Petrochem Company vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. & ors. (2011) 10 SCC 466].

5. The respondent no. 1 thereafter contemplated to initiate an arbitration proceeding which constrained the respondent no. 2 to file a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent no. 1 from initiating arbitration proceedings. Several orders were passed in the said suit and ultimately, the matter reached to the Supreme Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the civil suit is not maintainable in view of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement and the parties must be referred to arbitration.

6. A plea relating to the provision contained in section 5 of the said Act was also taken in support of the contention that the judicial authority is denuded of the power to entertain the civil suit concerning a dispute agreed to be resolved by an arbitrator under the said clause. The Apex Court in its judgment dated December 10, 2013 accepted the contention of ouster of the Civil Court's jurisdiction and referred the parties to arbitration [Chatterjee Petrochem Company & anr. vs. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. & ors. (2014) 14 SCC 574].

7. In terms of the arbitration clause, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted which entered into a reference and invited the parties to submit the statement of claim as well as the counter claim, if there be any.

8. The statement of claim filed by the respondent no. 1, relates to the specific performance of an agreement for transfer of 15,50,99,998 shares of the respondent no. 2 from the appellant no. 2 in favour of the claimant. It was further contended that the beneficial interest in the said s