( 1 ) THE petitioner entered into an agreement with Zavody Vseobecneho Strojirenstvi, hereinafter referred to as ZVS on 12th of July, 1982. In the said agreement, it was stipulated that ZVS had developed, tested and was manufacturing automatic offset press Adast Dominant 714 and that the petitioner was desirous of acquiring the technical documentation and knowhow for the said product and that ZVS was able and willing to supply the petitioner with the technical documentation, knowhow and to grant to the petitioner the right to use said documentation and knowhow for the manufacture, assembly, use and sale of the product. Subsequently, the petitioner entered into the agreements dated 18. 7. 1986 and 25. 7. 1986 with ZVS for Adast Dominant 514 and Adast Dominant 725 respectively. Subsequent thereto, it is stated in the petition that disputes arose between the parties in respect of the aforesaid two agreements and accordingly the present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for reference to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreements concerning enforcement of the terms of the aforesaid agreements.

( 2 ) THE respondent, on service of notice, appeared in the case and submitted its reply, contending inter alia, that the petition is not maintainable both on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction and relating to the subject matter. It was further contended that the respondent was not party to the agreements dated 18. 7. 1986 and 25. 7. 1986 forming subject matter of the present arbitration petition and also that the said agreements having lapsed by efflux of time were not subsisting and, therefore, no reference could be made in terms of the arbitration clause of the said agreements. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court framed three issues in the following manner:-

(I) Whether there was any agreement valid and subsisting between the parties.

(II) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the present petition.

(III) Whether the disputes raised in the petition could be referred for arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause?

( 3 ) I have heard Mr. Arun Jaitley appearing for the petitioner as also Mr. L. R. Gupta appearing for the respondent at considerable length. In the light of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, let me first take up for consideration the issue raised by the respondent with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present petition. Mr. Gupta appearing for the respondent submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition in view of the fact that the present is a case of international commercial arbitration as defined in Section 2 (f) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The learned counsel drew my attention to the definition of Section 2 (f) of the Act which defines the expression "international commercial arbitration". The said definition is as follows :-

"2 (F ). "international commercial arbitration" means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law in froce in India and where at least one of the parties is:-

(I) an individual who is a national of, or habitually resident in, any country other than India; or

(II) a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India;or

(III) a company or an association or a body of individuals whose central management and control is exercised in any country other than India; or

(IV) the Government of a foreign country.

( 4 ) IN terms of the aforesaid definition of the expression "international commercial arbitration" where at least one of the parties is an individual having nationality of another country other than India or a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India or