ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. These applications under Section 34 read with Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) have been filed by the applicant - Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (‘HZL’) seeking setting aside of Arbitral Awards dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal appointed by London Court of International Arbitration CLCIA’), whereby the claims raised by HZL have been rejected.

2. While Arbitration Application No. 28 of 2017 pertains to seller’s contract No. 190-ll-18206-S dated 13.12.2011, Application 6 of 2018 pertains to seller’s contract No. 190-12-12120-S dated 28.03.2012.

3. It may also be noticed that arbitration application No. 6 of 2018 is barred by limitation and an application under Section 34(3) of the Act seeking condonation of delay has been filed. In arbitration application No. 28 of 2017, notices were ordered to be issued on 06.11.2017, whereafter appearance was made on behalf of the respondent in both the applications.

4. An application has been filed by the respondent in application No. 28 of 2017 questioning the maintainability of the application and reserving right to contest the application filed by the applicant under Section 34(3) of the Act in application No. 6 of 2018, it has been submitted that the application under Section 34 of the Act per se is not maintainable.

5. It is submitted that in the present matters, the seat of arbitration was London, United Kingdom and the arbitration was governed by the Rules of London Court of International Arbitration (‘the Rules of LCIA’) and as the seat of arbitration is in London, any challenge as to the validity of the award is to be made only in the courts at the seat and, therefore, for lack of jurisdiction, the applications deserve to be dismissed on the said count alone.

6. Though, no reply to the application questioning the maintainability of the applications under Section 34 of the Act has been filed, submissions have been made vehemently opposing the application and claiming that the applications are maintainable.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the governing law/arbitration clause as contained in the agreements between the parties that the same in no uncertain terms provides for the contract and the arbitration clause to be governed by law of England and Wales and all the disputes to be finally settled by arbitration venue in London, United Kingdom and in accordance with the Rules of LCIA. It is submitted that under Section 2(2) Part-I of the Act applies only where the place of arbitration is in India and as admittedly in the present case arbitration has been held in London as per the Rules of LCIA, and the seat being at London, the applications under Section 34 of the Act are not maintainable.

8. Submissions have been made that the arbitration clause was invoked by the HZL and in its request for arbitration made to the Registrar of the LCIA, specific submissions were made by HZL indicating the seat of arbitration being London and once a specific plea in writing has been taken, the applicant cannot contend otherwise.

9. With reference to Larger Bench judgment of Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Production (India) INC : AIR 2018 SC 4871; Roger Shashoua and Ors. v. Mukesh Sharma. & Ors.: 2017 (14) SCC 722; Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552 (Balco-I); Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., (2016) 4 SCC 126 (Balco-II) and Union of India v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.: (2015) 10 SCC 213, it was submitted that the plea sought to be raised by the respondent to claim that London was only the venue and not the seat, is baseless.

10. Submissions were made that the plea sought to be raised by the applicant with reference to Section 81 of the English Arbitration Act, 1996 (‘English Arbitration Act’) is also baseless, inasmuch as, it cannot be said that the applicant could not have challenged the said award unde