IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 10395/2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 34382/2016)

ANEES BAZMEE, AN INDIAN INHABITANT Appellant

VERSUS

ROPTONAL LTD. (ERSTWHILE THE INDIAN FILM COMPANY (CYPRUS) LTD.) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR. Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

In Arbitration Application No. 97/2013 filed by the Indian Film Company (Cyprus) Ltd. and another, the parties appeared before the High Court on 12.6.2014 and agreed that arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that by consent, the matter be referred to sole Arbitrator, whose name was suggested by the parties. A single Judge of the High Court passed order on 12.6.2014 in terms of said consent.

The Arbitrator thereafter entered upon reference and it appears that the matter proceeded before him for more than a year and half. The parties, in the meantime, had exchanged pleadings and the matter was fixed for oral evidence.

At this juncture, an application for recall, namely, Review Petition (L) No. 7/2016 was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein contending, inter alia, that since one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was a company incorporated in a country other than India, the arbitration in question would be an "International Commercial Arbitration" and accordingly, the appropriate Court before which the application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') ought to

2

have been preferred was this Court and not the High Court. The submissions were countered by the present petitioner, submitting, inter alia, that as a result of novation and a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Bombay High Court, the original petitioner no. 1 in the arbitration application stood substituted by an Indian entity and as such, there was no infirmity in the exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act.

The High Court accepted the contentions advanced by the Review Petitioners and recalled the order dated 12.6.2014. This order of the High Court dated 8.6.2016 is presently under challenge before us.

We need not go into the merits or demerits of the respective contentions of the parties, as during the course of hearing, the parties very fairly submitted that there was absolutely no objection to the name of the Arbitrator and the conduct of the proceedings before the Arbitrator. It would, therefore, mean that the very same Arbitrator could still be appointed.

In the peculiar facts of the present case, since the arbitration proceedings had gone ahead before the Arbitrator and since there is no objection either to the name of the Arbitrator or to the conduct of the proceedings, in exercise of our power, we declare that the same Arbitrator shall continue to be the Arbitrator in the proceedings. We must, however, observe that the arbitration so conducted shall be an "International Commercial Arbitration" and if any exigency arises, the Court in question shall be this Court and not the High Court. Rest of the aspects shall continue to be in terms of the arbitration agreement entered into between the parties.

Since almost two years have elapsed after the parties had exchanged pleadings, we give liberty to the parties to file additional documents/pleadings or to effect amendments to the existing pleadings in six weeks from today. The parties shall appear before the Arbitrator on 23.10.2018. In case the date in question is not suitable, the Arbitrator may fix such appropriate date as he thinks fit. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

The order passed by the High Court is thus modified to the aforementioned extent and the appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.

....................J. [Uday Umesh Lalit]

....................J. [Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud]

New Delhi; October 10, 2018.

ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 34382/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-06-2016 in RPL No. 7/2016 in AAN No. 97/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)

ANEES BAZMEE, AN INDIAN INHABITANT Petitioner

VERSUS ROPTONAL LTD. (ERSTWHILE THE INDIAN FILM COMPANY (CYPRUS) LTD.) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR & ANR. Respondents

Date : 10-10-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioner Mr. Aman Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ankur Sudan, Adv. Ms. Nupoor Sinha, Adv.

For Respondents

Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Adv.

• Ms. Niyati Asthana, Adv.
• Ms. Liz Mathew, AOR

Ms. Sonam Gupta, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Deepak Guglani) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master (signed order is placed on the file)