1. The plaintiff no.1 Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. (BTVL) instituted this suit, for (i) declaration that the request dated 22nd August, 2003 submitted by defendant no.1 DSS Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (DSS) to defendant no.6 ICC International Court of Arbitration (ICC) is illegal and invalid and that the communication dated 28th August, 2003 issued by ICC pursuant thereto is illegal and invalid; (ii) permanent injunction prohibiting ICC from acting upon or commencing any proceeding pursuant to the request dated 22nd August, 2003 of DSS for arbitration; and, (iii) permanent injunction restraining DSS from seeking to make reference and / or commencing arbitration proceeding on the basis of Arbitration Agreement contained in the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12th August, 1992.

2. It was inter alia the case of BTVL in the plaint that:

(a) on 3rd March, 1992, Skycell Communications Ltd. (Skycell) was incorporated;

(b) on 12th August, 1992, a JVA was entered into between DSS, defendant no.2 Crompton Greaves Ltd. (CGL), defendant no.3 BellSouth International (Asia/Pacific) Inc., USA (BellSouth) and defendant no.4 Millicom International Cellular S.A., Luxembourg (Millicom), to subscribe to equity shares in the capital of Skycell and in pursuance whereto CGL, BellSouth and Millicom acquired 40.5%, 24.5% and 24.5% shares respectively of SkyCell; the remaining 10.5% shares of Skycell were held by DSS;

(c) CGL, BellSouth and Millicom, being parties to JVA, sold their respective shareholding in Skycell to BTVL which thus acquired 89.5% shareholding of Skycell;

(d) Skycell has since merged into defendant no.5 Bharti Cellular Ltd. (BCL);

(e) DSS, at the time of filing of this suit, was having shareholding of 0.34% only in BCL;

(f) from the request for arbitration made by DSS to ICC it is evident that the cause of action thereof is the JVA and DSS claims that it has been denied its rights, protection and benefits as a shareholder under the JVA;

(g) DSS is estopped from invoking arbitration of ICC, because:

(i) DSS filed Suit No.2089/2001 in this Court impleading BTVL, BellSouth, Millicom and Skycell as defendants thereto, making the same averments as made in the request for arbitration to ICC and seeking to restrain Skycell and Millicom from effecting any changes in the Board of Directors of Skycell and in the capital of Skycell;

(ii) DSS, by filing such a suit clearly acknowledged that there is no Arbitration Agreement in force and existence;

(iii) even if there were such an agreement, DSS having submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court, ought to be held to have waived, repudiated or abandoned the Arbitration Agreement;

(iv) BTVL had also filed Suit No.2202/2000 impleading DSS, CGL, BellSouth and Millicom as defendants thereto; the said defendants filed applications under Section 45 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and sought to have the matter referred to arbitration on the basis of Arbitration Agreement contained in the JVA; the said applications were rejected vide order dated 15th May, 2001 holding that unless the party applying for arbitration (under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act) accepts each of the other parties, as parties to the Arbitration Agreement, there can be no reference to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act; DSS was not accepting BTVL as party to the Arbitration Agreement contending that BTVL was a stranger to the Arbitration Agreement; the said order dated 15th May, 2001 has become final and binding on the parties and as a result thereof, DSS cannot enforce the Arbitration Agreement against the BTVL;

(v) DSS also filed Suit No.115/2000 before the District Court, Delhi impugning the transfer of shares held by CGL in Skycell without the consent of DSS; though BellSouth and Millicom being defendants to the said suit applied for reference of disputes to arbitration but the applications filed in this respect were not pressed; the Suit No.115/2000 also had since been dismissed though a