Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 28.4.2012 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act of 1996') has been dismissed.

2. The short facts of the case are that appellant-Company is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and is exclusive importer of cars, accessories and spare parts of the respondent companies for the entire Indian markets. The appellant-company entered into an agreement vide agreement dated 8.6.2007 for an indeterminable period with respondent No. 1, i.e. Porsche Middle East and Africa (hereinafter referred to at `PME') to sell new Porsche multipurpose sports vehicles, original spare parts, accessories etc.

3. Respondent No. 1 sent a notice vide e-mail to the appellant-company whereby it was mentioned that respondent-1 wishes to terminate the contract with the appellant-company which was executed on 8.6.2007 and the contract will automatically terminate after the period of 12 months, i.e. on 28.2.2012.

4. The clause 14.8 of the agreement clearly stipulates that any dispute arising out of or in connection with an agreement including the existence, validity, application or termination of this agreement shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with rules of London Court of International Arbitration. It has been further stipulated in clause 14.9 that execution and interpretation of the contract shall be subject to the laws in force in the Emirates of Dubai and clause 14.8.3 stipulates that the place at which the arbitration takes place shall be the Kingdom of Bahrain. Therefore, the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 to restrain the respondent companies from terminating the contract entered between the parties vide agreement dated 8.6.2007 and the termination notice which was issued in contravention of the terms and conditions of the contract and also against the laws of UAE. The Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur passed the ex parte order whereby it was directed to the respondent companies not to terminate the agreement without obtaining the approval from the committee as specified under the laws of UAE. Subsequently, after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 has been rejected and hence this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents which have been placed on record by both the parties.

6. Today, this matter was listed on the application for taking additional documents on record but with the consent of both the parties, documents have been taken on record and the matter has been heard finally.

7. The contention of the present appellant is that the termination notice is not valid. The learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the law laid down in the case reported in Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A. and Anr. (2002(4) SCC 105) and erroneously applied the case of Videocon Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 154) and Dozco India Private Limited vs. Infracore Company Limited (2011) 6 SCC 179) and the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the law of UAE under Federal Law No. (2) of 2012 are not applicable to the present dispute. The termination notice has been given in contravention of the agreement.

8. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that case of Bhatia International (supra) has been further clarified in the cases of Videocon Industries Ltd. and Dozco India Private Limited (supra). The notice of termination was rightly given and by e-mail dated 8.3.2011, it has been confirmed and accepted by the appellant. The learned trial court has rightly held that courts of India have no jurisdiction to hear any dispute arising out of the agreement in question. It was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document