V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This batch of petitions are primarily under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act of 1996” in short) being OMP 914/2011 by ITE India Pvt. Ltd (“ITE” in short) [challenging four Awards being Final Award dated August 5, 2011, Award on Jurisdiction dated February 27, 2007, Cost Award dated November 17, 2007 and Partial Final Award dated January 19, 2010 (it is dated January 5, 2010)] and OMP 04/2008 filed by Mukesh Sharma [challenging Award dated November 17, 2007]. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10954/2015 is filed by International Trade Expo. Centre Ltd. (“ITECL” in short) impugning order dated July 06, 2011 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2010, under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, initially filed before the High Court of Judicature, Allahabad but later on transferred by the Supreme Court vide its order dated September 15, 2015 in SLP Civil No. 22318/2010). The OMP 255/2010 is an Enforcement Petition under Section 47 and 49 of the Act of 1996 filed by Roger Shashoua and two others seeking enforcement of final Award dated January 5, 2010. The parties in this petition shall be referred to, not by their status in different petitions but by their names.

Facts:-

2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of the issues need to be decided by this order are that, on October 20, 1997, ITECL was allotted a property located at A-II, Sector-62, Noida for a sum of Rs.1.5 Crores paid as allotment money. Mukesh Sharma, Roger Shashoua and the International Trade Expo. Centre Ltd signed a Shareholders Agreement on July 1, 1998 whereby ITCEL was restructured as a Joint Venture Company. The paid up share capital of ITCEL was Rs.3 Crores, divided into 30 lakh shares. Mukesh Sharma and Roger Shashoua equally held 15 lakh shares each in the ITECL. It is the case of ITECL that in a Board meeting held on September 30, 1999, Roger Shashoua showed interest in transferring his share holding in ITECL to a company Shashoua holdings and subsequently shares were transferred to his company. As per agreement between Roger Shashoua and Mukesh Sharma, building plans were submitted and approved and pursuance of which construction agreement was signed between ITECL and H.S. Oberoi and company for construction of exhibition convention centre. The parties, Roger Shashoua and Mukesh Sharma agreed upon an arbitration clause to provide for a resolution of disputes i.e Clause 14. The clause reads as under:-

“14.1 In the event, a dispute arise in connection with the validity, interpretation, implementation or breach of any provision of this agreement, the parties shall attempt in the first instance, to resolve such dispute through negotiations within thirty (3) days from a party making a request therefore. In the event, the dispute is not resolved through negotiations or such negotiations do not commence within thirty (30) days of a written request on his behalf, either party may refer the dispute to arbitration. Each party shall nominate one arbitrator and in the event of any difference between the two arbitrators, a third arbitrator/umpire shall be appointed. The arbitration proceedings shall be, in accordance with the rules of the conciliation and arbitration of International Chamber of Commerce, Paris.

14.2 Proceedings in such arbitration shall be conducted in the English language.

14.4 The venue of arbitration shall be London, United Kingdom.”

I may note here that clause 17.6 of the Agreement, which has relevance to decide the issues which falls for consideration stipulates as under:-

“17.6 Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of India.”

3. It is the case of ITCEL that Roger Shashoua incorporated a company in the name of India Exhibition Management Pvt. Ltd (IEM) for undertaking activities of organising, designing, planning and setting up exhibition, trade fair etc. In April 2005, ITECL filed a suit against Roger Shash