( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose off the present application filed on behalf of Respondent under Order VII rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THIS application has been filed in OMP 200/99 which has been preferred TO under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). On being satisfied that the circumstances of the case so warrant, I had restrained the Respondent from selling, alienating or creating any third party interests in property bearing No. B-16, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, New Delhi. On receiving notice of the Petition, this application has been filed in which the substantial challenge is centered on the maintainability of the Petition itself. As the first order dated 16. 7. 1999 will indicate, it is not in controversy that when the Petition was filed, the disputes were already being adjudicated in London before Mr. Clive Aston, Arbitrator, pursuant to orders of the High Court of Justice at London. On the strength of a decision of this Court rendered in Dominant Offset Pvt. Ltd. v. Adamovske Strojimy A. S. , 68 (97) DLT 157= 1997 (42) DRJ 313 I had granted the injunction even though proceedings were pending outside India, though undisputedly in accordance with the arbitration clause between the parties.

( 3 ) DR. A. M. Singhvi, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent, has submitted that this Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act since the venue of Arbitration was England and English Law was applicable.

( 4 ) HE further emphasised that this was all the more significant since it was the Petitioner herein who had invoked and initiated arbitration proceedings in England. It was contended that Section 9 of the Act, is contained in Part I of the Act and would, therefore, apply only to domestic arbitrations, and did not vest extra-territorial powers with the Court and had essentially a domestic flavour and applicability. It was his submission that the Court must await the passing of the Award in London and only thereupon, under Section 48 (3), of Part II of the Act, could orders for providing security or the like, be considered. Reliance was placed on James Miller and Partners Ltd. v. Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd. , 1970 Appeal Case 583, Bank Mellat v. Helliniki Techniki S. A. , 1984 QB 291, Naviera Amazonica Peruana S. A. v. Compania International De Seguros Del Peru, 1988 (1) Lloyd s Law Reports 116 and Black Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A. G. , 1981 (2) Lloyds Law Reports 446 in order to substantiate his argument that these orders should appropriately be passed by Courts in London, which was the venue of the Arbitration. I do not intend to specifically deal with the foreign judgments cited at the Bar for the reason that a number of decisions have already been rendered by Single Benches of this Court on the subject.

( 5 ) IN Unicor Gmbh Rahn Plastmaschinen and Anr. , 1998 (47) DRJ 397 a learned Single Judge of this Court had held Section 9 of the Act not to be available to the Petitioner since the parties to the Agreement were foreigners and the place of Arbitration was outside India and the applicable law was also not Indian. Forum shopping is to be strongly deprecated, as has, in essence, been done by J. B. Goel, J. However this precedent is not an authority for the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the Defendant since uncontrovertedly, in the present case, the Respondent is an Indian Company, and its assets appear to be located entirely in India. I am otherwise in respectful agreement with the ratio established in this case.

( 6 ) IN Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Union of India and Anr. , 1997 (2) Arb. L. R 477 C. M. Nayar, J. had entertained a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act even though the seat of arbitration was outside India i. e. International Court of Arbitration. It is noteworthy that al