( 1 ) M/s Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the plaintiff ) has preferred a suit, being suit No. 2788/94, against four defendants. The first two defendants are M/s Prudent International Shipping and Trading Company Ltd. , and M/s Andagro Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter REFERRED TO as defendants 1 and 2 respectively ). The other two are the London Maritime Arbitrators. Association and Mr. J. A. Schofield, the arbitrator. Decree for declaration prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit is to the effect that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and consequently there does not exist any arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. As aconsequence to this it is prayed that defendant No. 3 has no jurisdiction to entertain any arbitration proceedings and award, if any rendered by defendant No. 4 would be illegal and nullity. Decree for injunction has been claimed restraining defendants 3 and 4 from proceeding against the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. Decree for injunction is also claimed against defendant No. 1 not to go ahead with the arbitration proceedings stated to have been commenced before defendants 3 and 4.

( 2 ) ALONG with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 11 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (IA 10655/94) claiming ad interim injuction retraining defendant No. l from enforcing the arbitration agreement and against defendant No. 4 from proceeding further with the arbitration or to pronounce any award in pursuance thereto.

( 3 ) SUMMONS in the suit and notice in IA 10655/94 were issued against the defendants for 16. 1. 1995 on which date a statement was made on behalf of defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 intends to move an application under Section 3 of the Foreign Award (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (Act 45 of 1961) (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the act .) On 24. 1. 1995, a petition under Section 3 of the Act (OMP No. l3/95) was moved by defendant No. 1 praying for staying the proceedings in the, suit. Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have exchanged their affidavits in IA 10655/94 and in OMP 13/95 and have also placed on record number of documents. Counsel for the parties were heard at length by me on the question whether proceedings in the suit, in terms of Section 3. of the Act are or are not liable to he stayed and on the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of temporary injunction during the pen dency of the suit.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF s case is that defendant No. 2 placed a purchase order on the plaintiff for supply of 10400 M. Tonnes (10% more or less) Indian yellow maize in bulk shipment from India at US $ 128 per M. Tonne. Defendant No. 2 had contracted with one Bakhtaran Danesh and Co. in Iran to supply the same product at US $ 165 per M. Tonne. Plaintiff, thus, supplied to Bakhtaran Danesh and Co. on account of defendant No. 2 by shipment from India to Bandar Imam Khomeinci and received the sale price from Bakhtaran Danesh and Coat US $165 per M. Tonne. Defendant No. 2 raised a debit note on plaintiff for reimbursement of the difference between the contracted price and the selling price. Thus, on the one hand there was a contract of purchase and sale between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and on the other hand between defendant No. 2 and Bakhtaran Danesh and Co. There was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and Bakhtaran Danesh and Co. For and on behalf of defendant No. 2 the plaintiff made supply to Bakhtaran Danesh and Co. Defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that the supply had to be shipped on a ship known as Prudent Voyager , belonging to defendant No. 1. There was also no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. A notice dated 25. 8. 1994 was served on the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No. 1 by which the plaintiff was called upon to pay demurrage with intere