INDIAN ALUMUNIUM CABLES LIMITED Vs. EX SUD LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this apetition &re that M/S Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd, hereinafter called the petitioner entered into negotiations with M/S Vistas Trading Company having its registered office at 106B, Sainik Farm, New Delhi, authorised agent of respondent M/S Exsud Ltd, a company incorporated under the laws if kingdom for purchasing 1500 M.T.of EC grade of aluminium rod. THE terms of these discussions were communicated by Vistas Trading Company to the respondent throught itelex dated 14.9.90 (Ex AW1/1) mentioning the material to be supplied, quantity of the material, price and direction for shipment on different dales. THE terms of the settlement between the petitioner and Vistas Trading Company, the authorised agent of the respondent, were accepted by the respondent and the acceptance was conveyed to Vistas Trading Co. with a copy to the petitioner on 17.9.90 (ExAW1/2). In pursuance of this agreement duly arrived at between the parties regarding the sale of 1500 M.T. of E.C. grade aluminium rod, the petitioner accepted 250 MT of the said material and payment was made accordingly and thereafter on account of some restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India, as per the case of the petitioner, further deliveries could not be taken by them which gave rise to disputes and differences between the parties touching this agreement of sale of 1500 M.T.of E.C. grade aluminium rod and a unilateral arbitration reference was threatened to be made for arbitration to London Metal Exchange. That reference of the matter to London Metal Exchange has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition on various grounds pleading, inter alia, that the said agreement to Sell as evidenced by two telex one dated 14.9.90 by Vistas Trading Co to the respondent and the other dated 17.9.90 addressed by the respondent to Vistas Trading with a copy to the petitioner does not contain any arbitration clause on which the parties had ever agreed to refer the mater to arbitration of London Metal Exchange or to anyone else.

(2.) THE petitioner in its telex dated 9.8.91 objected to the purported reference to the arbitration of London Metal Exchange alleging that the terms and conditions of the agreement duly entered between the parties are specified in telex dated 14.9.90 and 17.9.90 and they do not contain any arbitration clause. THE receipt of any type of contract containing any arbitration clause or entering into any arbitration agreement has been specifically denied by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the act of the respondent referring the disputes to the arbitration of London Metal Exchange has been challenged in this petition byseeking a relief of declaration that no arbitration agreement for reference of the alleged disputes to London Metal Exchange is in existence between the parties and therefore, the purported reference under the agreement referred by the respondent to London Metal Exchange iswholly without jurisdiction and illegal and not binding.