The decision of this Court in Shiva Jute Bailing Ltd. case (supra) and the supporting observations in three other decisions of this Court, namely, Kharda Co 's case, Waverly Jute Mills case and M/s. R.N. Ganekar & Co 's case (all supra) on which reliance was placed by Counsel for Renusagar are of no avail for two reasons (i) they deal with a position arising under sections 33, 34 and 35 of the and the manner in which certain phrases occurring therein are construed would offer no guidance in construing the relevant phrase occurring in section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act which will have to be construed on its own language and in the light of the scheme of the Foreign Awards Act and (ii) though the ratio in Shiva Jute Bailing Ltd. case has been expressed rather broadly it cannot be forgotten that in each one of the four cases the question pertained to either the existence or the validity of the arbitration 498 agreement and not the effect (scope) thereof, (i.e. not the issue of the arbitrability of the claims) and, therefore, the ratio in that case as also the supporting observations made in the other three cases will have to be understood as being applicable to the actual issue that arose on the facts of each on of them.