-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 35 OF 2007 Praj Industries Limited ).. Petitioner Versus Infor Global ).. Respondent Mr Shyam Mehta a/w Ms Minakshi Iyer i/b M/s Doijode & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr Samir Vaidya a/w Mr Manish Mohan for the Respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 P.C. This is a Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to the Petitioner, they had entered into arbitration agreements with SSA Global Technologies (India) Private Limited which now has been converted to Infor Global with its registered office at Mumbai, one was a Software License Agreement and the other Professional Services Agreement, copies of which have been placed on record vide Exhibits “A” to “D” of the Petition. Clauses 18 and 13 respectively of the said Agreements are arbitration clauses -2- which provide for resolution of disputes by reference to arbitration. As per the arbitration clause, in relation to unresolved disputes or differences, both parties shall appoint an Arbitrator by mutual consent who shall proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and venue of arbitration is stated to be at Pune, in India. 2. In the reply filed, the Respondents have not disputed the execution of these agreements or existence of the arbitration clause therein. In fact, it has been so specifically mentioned in the reply filed by the Respondents. The Respondents have even filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Act. They have not taken circulation as of now, though the same has been numbered. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that the notice issued by the Petitioners for appointment of an arbitrator on 9th November 2006 was addressed to a foreign entity i.e. Infor Global World Headquarters in U. S. A. and this being a foreign entity, this Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. On the contrary, it is the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India who will have the jurisdiction, if at all it is there. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme -3- Court in the case of SBP & Co. vs Patel Engineering Ltd. and another, (2005) 8 SCC 618. In my view, the law enunciated in the said judgment, has no application to the facts of the present case. This argument is without any basis and is misconceived in law. Once there is no dispute about the arbitration agreements, parties to the agreements are residents of India and the destination for arbitration proceedings in India has been agreed and no foreign entity or person is party to the arbitration agreements, neither the said party is called upon to participate in the arbitration proceedings, there is no reason to question jurisdiction of this Court. From the bare reading of the notice issued, it is clear that the Petitioners intend to enforce the arbitration clause as stated. The noticee company at No.2 of the notice dated 9th November 2006, which is a foreign company, is neither a party to the agreements nor has been called upon to attend and participate in the arbitration proceedings in relation to dispute raised. 4. The parties to the arbitration agreements have failed to mutually agree to a name of Arbitrator. Consequently, the former Judge of this Court Shri Justice R M Bapat is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and proceed with the arbitration proceedings in accordance with law. -4- 5. Petition disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE