The Court has the power to grant interim relief in international commercial arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the provisions of Part I of the Act, including Section 9, apply to international commercial arbitrations, even if the venue of arbitration is outside India.

( 1 ) THE contract between the petitioner Olex and respondent No. 1 Skodaexport was for the execution of works in India, for and on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short IOCL ). The agreement between Olex and Skodaexport, however, provided for disputes to be resolved by reference to ICC arbitration. Olex Focus Pvt. Ltd and Olex Pvt. Ltd. are one and the same, therefore, they are jointly referred to as the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an Australian company and respondent No. 1 Skodaexport Company Ltd. is a Czech company. Respondent No. 2, Indian Oil Corporation Limited is a Government of India Company and has been impleaded in the present proceedings only to enable this court to anforce its orders. No relief otherwise is being claimed by the petitioner from respondent No. 2, except for restraining it from making any payment to respondent No. 1 arising out of the Contract dated 22. 9. 1993 with the petitioner in relation to Kandla-Bhatinda pipeline.

( 3 ) IT is mentioned in the agreement that the laws of Switzerland be applicable in the event of any dispute. In November, 1993 the petitioner commenced work on the Kandla Bhatinda Pipeline and, upon execution of the sub-contract, detailed and exhaustive works were carried out by the petitioner for and on behalf of respondent No. 1. During the course of works, the petitioner learnt that respondents No. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement in November, 1995 pursuant to which respondent No. 1 agreed to hand over the work of Kandla-Bhatinda Pipeline to respondent No. 2 in four separate phases and to allow respondent No. 2 unrestricted use of the pipeline following the hand over of each phase. For its part, respondent No. 2, amongst other things, granted to respondent No. 1 the commencement of its defect liability period for installed equipment for each phase was handed over to respondent No. 2 Respondent No. 1 did not advise or seek the co-operation of the petitioner before entering into this agreement with respondent No. 2.

( 4 ) DURING the course of the project, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 leading to the petitioner filing two separate notices of requests for arbitration against respondent No. 1 on 12. 7. 1996 with the International Court of Arbitration.

( 5 ) IT may be pertinet to mention that on 25. 7. 1996, respondent No. 1 filed two petitions before this Court being AA Nos. 74 and 75 of 1996 in which the petitioner sought an order declaring that the petitioners notices for requesting for arbitration were illegal, improper and not maintainable and prayed that the order be passed directing the arbitration proceedings be held in India.

( 6 ) ON the request of respondent No. 1 on 13. 5. 1997 this Court dismissed the petition Nos. AA 74 and 75 of 1996 as withdrawn.

( 7 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner has a strong prima fade case before the arbitral tribunal. It is also submitted by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is under an obligation to pay to the petitioner for the works done and equipments supplied through invoices. Irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the petitioner in the event, the rights of the petitioner are not protected during the interregnum period.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. Arvind Nigam submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is entitled to the protection by an injunction because in case the injunction is not granted, the petitioner is not likely to recover its legitimate dues. The petitioner has placed on record a report of M/s. Dunn and Bradstreet. This report of October 1998 indicates the respondent No. 1 has networth of about US $ 16 million. The claim of the petitioner alone is US $ 25. 4 million which is far in excess of the networth of respondent No. 1. The said report also shows that the turnover of respondent No. 1 in 1997 was down by 28% of its turnover of 1996 and the profit for the year 1997 was only US $ 20,000. T