REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By way of present application, an anti-suit injunction is sought by the Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from pursuing Claim No.2009, Folio 1382 filed in the High Court of Justice, Queen?s Bench Division, Commercial Court, London. The aforesaid application is filed in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction instituted by the Plaintiff to restrain the above named Defendant from pursuing the aforesaid claim in London in relation to the issue and matter already finally determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment and order dated 11.05.2011 between the parties.

2. The chronological factual matrix leading to the institution of the suit in which the present application is instituted is delineated as follows.

3. The Union of India, the Plaintiff herein, as the owner of natural resources including petroleum in the territorial waters of India, through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, entered into a Production Sharing Contract (hereinafter referred to as “PSC”) on October 28, 1994 at New Delhi. The said PSC was executed between the Union of India on the one hand and a consortium of four companies consisting of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), Videocon Petroleum Limited, Command Petroleum (India) Private Limited and Ravva Oil (Singapore) Private Limited in terms of which the consortium was granted an exploration licence and mining lease to explore and produce hydro-carbon resources owned by the plaintiff underlying a Contract Area called „Ravva Oil and Gas Field?in the Offshore of Andhra Coast owned by the Plaintiff. These companies, including ONGC, are collectively referred to as “the Contractor” in the PSC. Subsequently, Cairn Energy U.K. was substituted in place of Command Petroleum (India) Private Limited and the name of Videocon Petroleum Limited was changed to Petrocon India Limited, which merged with the Defendant herein, i.e., Videocon Industries Limited.

4. The aforesaid PSC was entered into for and on behalf of the President of India with the desire that the petroleum resources in the Contract Area be exploited with the utmost expedition in the overall interest of India. As per Article 35.2 of the PSC, it was stipulated that the contract shall not be amended, modified, varied or supplemented in any respect except by an instrument in writing signed by all the parties, which shall state the date upon which the amendment or modification shall become effective.

5. The PSC dated 28.10.1994 also contained a stipulation in Article 33.1 that the contract shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the Laws of India subject to Article 34.12, which, inter alia, provided that the seat of arbitration shall be Kuala Lumpur and the Arbitration Agreement as contained in Article 34 shall be governed by the Laws of England.

6. In the year 2000, disputes arose between the Plaintiff and the Defendant pertaining to the correctness of certain cost recoveries and profit, which along with a few other disputes was referred to an Arbitral Tribunal as contemplated in Article 34 of the PSC. The arbitration case relevant for the present purposes was registered on 19.08.2003 as Case No.3 of 2003 before the Tribunal at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and was fixed for hearing. However, before the hearing could take place, Malaysia was hit by the outbreak of the epidemic „SARS?. Accordingly, after consultation and keeping in mind the convenience of all concerned and to ensure that proceedings were not delayed, the Tribunal held sittings at Amsterdam in the first instance and on 15.11.2003 the parties agreed to shift the seat of arbitration to London. This was done, according to the plaintiff, without affecting the contractual and jurisdictional venue of Kuala Lumpur and without amendment of the arbitration agreement as contemplated in the PSC. Therefore, the jurisdictional seat of the arbitration remained and continues to remain in Kuala Lumpur.

7. The Arbitral Tribunal