LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-37

FAIRCOT S A Vs. TATA SSL LTD

Decided On August 04, 2000
FAIRCOT S A Appellant
V/S
TATA SSL LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 19th November, 1999 of the Ld. Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.128 of 1989. The said Petition was filed in respect of the Arbitration Award rendered by the Arbitrators appointed by the Liverpool Cotton Association Limited, Liverpool, U. K. As such, therefore, it will be governed by the provisions of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. As can be expected, the prayer clauses in the Petition, at page 11 of the paper book, are that the Award be filed in the Court; the Respondent be served with a show cause notice calling upon it as to why the Award Exhibit-"b" to the Arbitration Petition should not be filed in the Court and; of course, prayer as to the pronouncement of the judgment and drawing of a decree in accordance with the Award.

(2.) THE principal objection raised before the Ld. Single Judge by the Respondent was that the Award cannot be enforced because the Arbitrators have no jurisdiction to make the Award. This submission is made on the basis that the very existence of the contract pursuant to which the Arbitrators were appointed and entered into the Reference and gave the Award, itself was in question. For this purpose, they relied on a Supreme Court Judgment given in Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Company and Another. It is reported in (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases, Page 679.

(3.) BEFORE the said paragraph 52, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "old Act, 1940. ") and Foreign Awards Act, 1961, have been compared and contrasted. On one hand, we have Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Foreign Awards Act, 1961, and on the other, we have Sections 32, 33 and 34 of the Old Act, 1940. Clearly holding that, though Section 4 (2) declares that a Foreign Award shall be treated as binding "for all purposes" on persons as between whom the award is made, it is laid down that it is subject to Section 7 whereunder enforcibility thereof is made dependent upon satisfaction of certain conditions specified therein.