Delhi High Court I.T.C. Limited vs Pradeep Anand And Ors. on 3 July, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ARBLR67(DELHI) JUDGMENT Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Page 2399 1. The parties to the present dispute sought to cooperate amongst themselves for furtherance of their business interest and entered into a Cooperation Agreement dated 11.09.1990. Instead of there being any cooperation, the Agreement resulted in serious disputes between the parties, which gave rise to the arbitral proceedings as also the present proceedings. The substratum of the dispute is the rights and obligations, if any, which came into existence in pursuance of this Cooperation Agreement as also the very legality and validity of the said Agreement. 2. The Cooperation Agreement dated 11.09.1990 contains an arbitration clause in Article 12(b) providing for settlement of disputes under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short, ICC) with the arbitration to be held at Bombay, India. The clause reads as under: Article 12 : General Provisions (a)... (b) Any unresolved dispute arising in connection with this Agreement shall be settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed Page 2400 in accordance with those rules and the arbitration shall be held at Bombay, India. The award of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto. 3. The disputes between the parties resulted in the appointment of Shri Datuk George KS Seah as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator made and published a Partial Award dated 24.04.1998. 4. M/s. ITC Limited (for short, ITC) filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No. 1084A/1998 under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as, the said Act) seeking filing of the said Partial Award in Court. The Award was filed in the suit proceedings and ITC thereafter filed objections vide IA No. 2411/1999 thereby seeking setting aside of the Partial Award and for the same to be declared bad in law, non est, null and void. ITC also seeks direction to the effect that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make any further Award or the Final Award. 5. Late Shri C.L. Anand, was one of the parties to the Agreement, but passed away during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings whereby his son, Shri Pradeep Anand was substituted in his place. It may be noticed that late Shri C.L. Anand was claimant before the Arbitrator. M/s. Toshiba Anand Battery Limited (an Indian company) (for short, M/s. Toshiba Anand) went into liquidation in terms of the Orders of the Kerala High Court dated 05.11.1996 and Shri Pradeep Anand was granted permission by the said High Court in terms of the Order dated 11.04.1997 to continue with the arbitration with a direction that the Award shall not bind any of the properties of the said company in liquidation and shall not be executed against that company. Shri Pradeep Anand was, however, given liberty to make appropriate applications to be considered in accordance with law. The Award, thus, refers to Shri Pradeep Anand as the claimant representing the family and associate companies (India) of Shri C.L. Anand (deceased). 6. Shri Pradeep Anand has filed CS (OS) No. 1737/1998 under Sections 14 and 17 of the said Act for filing of the Partial Award dated 24.04.1998 and for making the same Rule of the Court. 7. M/s. Toshiba Corporation and M/s. Toshiba Battery Company Limited, two other parties to the Cooperation Agreement and the Award, filed a suit bearing CS (OS) No. 1033/1994 against ITC, Shri C.L. Anand and M/s. Toshiba Anand for declaration and recovery ofRs. 10 crores along with future interest. One Shri D.P. Barua was also imp leaded as defendant No. 2 in the said suit, who was the President, Corporate Finance and Planning of ITC. The declaration sought in the suit is in respect of the same Cooperation Agreement dated 11.09.1990 and for the same to be valid and binding on ITC. The decree for recovery with interest is sought against ITC and Shri C.L. Anand. The alternative prayer made is that Shri D.P. Barua be declared guilty of misrepresenting about his authority to represent defendant No. 1 and a decree be passed against defendants No. 2 and 3 jointly for the amount ofRs. 10 crores along with interest. 8. The aforesaid proceedings were all being taken up simultaneously after a stage and ITC filed an application being IA No. 5316/2005 in CS (OS) No. 1084/1998 for determination of the jurisdictional issue raised in IA Page 2401 No. 2411/1999 first out of the objections filed to the Partial Award. This application was allowed vide Order dated 19.11.2005 and consequence of this Order is that arguments have been heard on the jurisdictional objections to the Partial Award of the Arbitrator and it is only that aspect which has to be adjudicated by