Manmohan Singh, J.

1. IA No. 11355/2009 has been filed by defendant No. 2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity) for rejection of the plaint. This order shall dispose of the afore-stated application.

2. The present suit has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(a) declare that the purported arbitration agreement incorporated in the eight (8) Sales Contract executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 for supply of coated steel coils is vague and indeterminate and hence void and incapable of being enforced;

(b) defendant No. 1 has no jurisdiction under the Sales Contracts and arbitration proceedings cannot be commenced or consummated under the aegis of defendant No. 1;

(c) declare that the Sales Contract would be interpreted in terms of and governed by Indian Contract Act, 1872 and that the proper or substantive law in the instant case would be Indian Law;

(d) grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and defendant No. 1 restraining them from initiating the arbitration proceedings, pursuant to the purported arbitration notice under the aegis of defendant No. 1;

(e) declare that there is no arbitrable dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2.

3. The brief facts leading up to the filing of the present case are that the plaintiff is a Public Limited company duly constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 with national as well as international repute and goodwill in its business of manufacturing steel, iron and allied products. Defendant No. 2 is a corporation existing under the laws of Denmark with its registered office at Denmark. As per the plaint, the parties entered into fourteen Sales Contracts in 2007 according to which defendant No. 2 was to purchase goods from the plaintiff under the terms of the contracts. The quantity and quality of the goods was mentioned in the contracts but the actual specifications were to be determined at the time of placing of order. As per eight of the fourteen contracts, 776 coated steel coils were shipped by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 and were duly received by it without any objection between July and November 2007.

4. Invoices for the goods delivered were sent to the defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff for the first time received communication vide letter dated 16.01.2008 from the said defendant to the effect that the quality of the goods was not as per specification. Despite the complaint being time barred, the plaintiff sent its surveyor to inspect the said defective products and found that none of the so-called `defective' products were in fact faulty. Further, of the 776 coils which were shipped to the defendant No. 2, only 32 were found.

5. Despite these complaints, defendant No. 2 proceeded to remit advance payment vis--vis the goods which were subject matter of the remaining six contracts between the parties and the plaintiff prepared the goods but in the meantime, defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that the goods should not be dispatched till further directions. No such direction/ communication has been made to the plaintiff till date, who is at a loss of USD 777297.23 as the products were manufactured on client-based specifications and cannot be sold in the open market.

6. By notice dated 11.06.2008 defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that due to the faulty goods supplied by it to the defendant, the plaintiff would be liable to pay to defendant No. 2 a sum of Rs. 4,278,689.88 along with interest @ 12%. The contracts were not cancelled and the plaintiff was called upon to deliver the remaining goods under the said contracts. The plaintiff replied vide letter dated 18.06.2008 stating that defendant No. 2 owed it USD 777297.23 for the goods lying with it and that arbitration proceedings could not be initiated due to the vague terms in which the arbitration clause was worded. Thereafter defendant No. 2 issued another notice dated 05.01.2009 initiating winding up proceedings agains