Vipin Sanghi, J.:— The respondents have placed before this court the certified copy of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5765/2014 in Reliance Industries Limited v. Union of India delivered on 28.05.2014 The Supreme Court by the said judgment has disposed of the appeal preferred by the respondent to assail the order dated 22.03.2013, whereby this court had held that the present objection petition was maintainable before this court.
2. The Supreme Court has, in terms, held that the petition is not maintainable under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the award is arising out of an International Commercial Arbitration, and Part-I of the Act does not apply in the facts of the present case.
3. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Ganguli, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner has preferred a review petition before the Supreme Court in respect of the judgment dated 28.05.2014, which is still pending decision. He submits that this court should, therefore, adjourn the present matter to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the review petition.
5. I am not inclined to follow that course of action. Since there is a pronouncement by the Supreme Court with regard to the maintainability of the present petition, in my view, the better course would be to dispose of the present petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek revival of this petition in case the Supreme Court allows the review petition preferred by the petitioner and holds that the present petition is maintainable.
6. Mr. Ganguli submits that the respondent may oppose any such move to seek revival of the petition in case the review is allowed.
7. Dr. Singhvi has assured, on instructions, that in case the review is allowed, the respondent would possibly have no objection to the revival of the petition.
8. Since Part-I of the Act did not apply to the agreement in the present case, neither sections 14 and 34 of the Act would apply.
9. In view of the aforesaid position, both the petitions are disposed of as not being maintainable.