Sanjib Banerjee, J.

1. The principal matter in issue in this appeal is how an injunction in personam restraining a person from proceeding with a foreign arbitral reference would impact the application for implementation of the foreign award when such award has been rendered at a time that the injunction was in subsistence, but the injunction has subsequently been vacated.

2. The appellant here is a company incorporated and organised under the appropriate laws of Hong Kong and having its principal place of business in Hong Kong. The respondent is a Kolkata-based company.

3. On February 29, 2012, the parties entered into an agreement under which the appellant agreed to buy iron ore fines of indicated specifications from the respondent herein. Clause 14 of the agreement recognised the contract to be governed by English law and any dispute arising out of such agreement to be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the English statute and the arbitration to be conducted by the London Maritime Arbitrators' Association (LMAA). There may or may not have been subsequent addenda to the original agreement, but nothing turns on such dispute between the parties. The facts narrated are as they appear from the pleadings and the disagreements between the parties on minor matters may not have any bearing in the context of the larger legal issue that has arisen.

4. To continue with the factual narrative, it appears to be the fairly admitted position that the respondent herein was unable to supply the goods to the appellant in terms of the agreement of February 29, 2012 or at any rate, the respondent persuaded the appellant to accept the supply of the goods from another supplier by the name of Muktar Minerals Private Limited of Goa. Supplier Muktar apparently could not arrange the delivery of the goods within the time prescribed by the appellant. Indeed, a vessel commissioned for carrying the goods had to wait for about 70 days at the load-port and the appellant, apparently, had to clear the claims on account of demurrage and dead freight to obtain release of its consignment of cargo.

5. It is the contention of the respondent in a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in this court, that the disputes between the parties herein as to the claim of the respondent for the price of goods and the claim of the appellant on account of demurrage and the goods not adhering to the contractual specifications were settled in April, 2013 and such settlement is reflected in a letter issued by the appellant to the respondent on April 24, 2013. By such letter, the respondent asserts, the appellant agreed to pay a total amount of US $ 1 million by executing five bills of exchange of value of US $ 200,000 each. According to the respondent's plaint in the summary suit as filed in this court, about US $ 300,000 out of the agreed amount of US $ 1 million has been paid by the appellant to the respondent and the claim in the suit is for the balance amount and based on three of the five bills of exchange in full and another in part.

6. The respondent's summary suit was filed in this court in June, 2014. In January, 2015 the appellant applied under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the disputes being the subject-matter of the respondent's suit to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement contained in the original contract between the parties of February 29, 2012.

7. On March 25, 2015, the interlocutory court here directed affidavits to be exchanged in such application filed by the appellant and restrained the parties from taking any step in the suit. In June, 2015 the appellant apparently invoked the arbitration agreement and appointed its arbitrator. The respondent denied the existence of any arbitration agreement between the parties and objected to the arbitral reference by its letter of July 7, 2015. However, by the middle of October, 2015, the appellant filed its sta