RESOLUTION INDIA LTD Vs. ONE CHROME LLC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) to seek certain orders of restraint against the respondents. On issuance of notice by this Court (which was issued on account of the petitioner making a statement that the petitioner is willing to negotiate a deal with the respondents), the respondents have put in appearance and filed their short reply. I may note that on 08.07.2011, the respondent had stated that there was no possibility of any negotiation or settlement with the petitioner.

(2.) The reply filed by the respondent is limited to the challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Detailed arguments have been made by the parties, limited to the aforesaid aspect. As the aspect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, I propose to deal with the same without entering into the merits of the dispute.

(3.) The submission of learned senior counsel for the respondent is that the agreement in question has been entered into between four parties, including the petitioner, and none of the parties is an Indian entity. Resolution India Limited, the petitioner is incorporated under the laws of Mauritius, having its registered office in Mauritius. One Chrome LLC, respondent No. 1, is a limited liability company incorporated in the USA; Capital Services Holding Corp, respondent No. 2 is a company incorporated in British Virgin Islands, and Capital Servicing Co. Ltd, respondent no.3 is a company incorporated in Japan.