Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to seek certain orders of restraint against the respondents. On issuance of notice by this Court (which was issued on account of the petitioner making a statement that the petitioner is willing to negotiate a deal with the respondents), the respondents have put in appearance and filed their short reply. I may note that on 08.07.2011, the respondent had stated that there was no possibility of any negotiation or settlement with the petitioner.

2. The reply filed by the respondent is limited to the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Detailed arguments have been made by the parties, limited to the aforesaid aspect. As the aspect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, I propose to deal with the same without entering into the merits of the dispute.

3. The submission of learned senior counsel for the respondent is that the agreement in question has been entered into between four parties, including the petitioner, and none of the parties is an Indian entity. Resolution India Limited, the petitioner is incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, having its registered office in Mauritius. One Chrome LLC, respondent No. 1, is a limited liability company incorporated in the USA; Capital Services Holding Corp, respondent No. 2 is a company incorporated in British Virgin Islands, and Capital Servicing Co. Ltd, respondent No. 3 is a company incorporated in Japan.

4. The transaction in question relates to sale of shares by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, of its share holding in respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Under Clause 17 of the agreement, it is specifically provided that the agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Therefore the substantive laws applicable to the agreement are the laws of England and Wales. Clause 17.2 of the agreement is relied upon, and the same reads as follows:-

"17.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") and shall be governed by SIAC Rules then in force. The arbitration shall be conducted in Singapore by a panel of three arbitrators. The language for arbitral proceedings shall be English. The Parties each recognize the importance of complying with the SIAC Rules and any and all orders and directions made by the arbitrators or arbitration tribunal appointed or constituted in accordance with the SIAC Rules, and acknowledge, unequivocally and without reservation, that any failure by the respondent to submit(a) a response to the notice of arbitration, (b) a statement of defence, or (c) any other document in connection with any arbitration proceedings, in each case in accordance with the SIAC Rules (each, an "Arbitration Failure") shall constitute an admission by the respondent that it has no valid defence to the dispute submitted to arbitration. Accordingly, any Arbitration Failure by the respondent shall entitle the claimant to a binding and enforceable Award ( as such term is defined in the SIAC Rules), which Award shall be accepted by the Parties as a decision of the arbitration tribunal on the substance of the dispute and not be challenged by the respondent in any court or arbitration tribunal."

5. The submission of Mr. Mehra is that the parties had agreed that disputes relating to the existence, validity or termination of the agreement shall be finally resolved by arbitration under the aegis of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the same shall be governed by the SIAC Rules in force. The arbitration is to be conducted in Singapore by a panel of three Arbitrators. Mr. Mehra submits that w