BALASORE ALLOYS LIMITED Vs. MEDIMA LLC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, Balasore Alloys Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Balasore") against the defendant/respondent, Medima LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Medima"), primarily seeking an anti- arbitration injunction, restraining the respondent from going forward with its intent to arbitrate in the dispute that has arisen between them, before the International Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "ICC") in London, United Kingdom.

(2.) The facts of the lis between the two parties is circumscribed within the following compass:

(3.) Interestingly, given that a dispute has now arisen between the parties inter se, evident from the "Notice of Dispute" that was initially issued by the attorney for Medima to Balasore on March 13, 2020, a dichotomy of approach in resorting to arbitration has now appeared! While the plaintiff seeks to rely on the domestic or Indian arbitration clauses to seek a domestic arbitration and therefore, collaterally seeks the remedy of issuance of an anti-arbitration injunction against the ICC arbitration through this suit, Medima argues that it is the ICC arbitration under clause 23 of the 2018 Agency Agreement that has to be accorded primacy and this court therefore, does not have the power to issue an anti-arbitration injunction to restrain the concerted legal efforts of Medima. In my opinion, based on the trailing narration of oscillating events, I need to deal primarily, with two questions of critical importance: