GUJRALS CO Vs. M A MORRIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this revision petition is whether a foreign award has to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp act, 1899, before it is filed and made a rule of the Court in India.

(2.) In appears that there was some dispute between the respondent, Messrs. M. A. Morris Limited London, a Company registered under the provisions of the English companies Act, and the petitioner, Messrs. Gujrals Company, New Delhi, with regard to the supply of certain goods by the petitioner the respondent. Thereupon, the matter was referred to arbitration in England and the award was given on 252-1953, according to which the respondent-Company was entitled to get and 325 and 7 Shillings from the petitioner. Further and 42 were assessed as costs and fees of the award, which amount was also to be paid by the petitioner. Since no payment was made to the respondent, they filed the present application in the Court to the subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, under section 6 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act and section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act for the enforcement of the foreign award. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the award was inadmissible in evidence, having not been duly stamped. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that the award did not require any stamp and was admissible in evidence. Against this order, the present petition has been filed by Messrs. Gujrals Company.

(3.) Reference was made to a decision of Chopra, J. , in Co-operative Assurance co. , Ltd. vs. Lachhman Singh Bhagat Singh, AIR 1951 Pepsu 24, wherein it was held as under:-" where a suit for the recover of money due for purchase of shares in a company outside Kapurthala State is instituted in the State because the defendant-purchaser was the resident of that State the transfer of the rights and liabilities of the Company during the pendency of the suit by a deed to a third person would not relate to any property situate or anything to be done in the State. The right of the transferee to continue the suit is only a consequence of the transfer and would not render the deed of transfer relate to any property situate or thing to be done in the state. " the exact wording of the document in question in that authority is no reproduced in the judgment and, therefore, it is difficult for me to rely on the same. Moreover, the learned Judge has himself in the later part of his judgment observed as under:-"it may be argued that the right to sue in the State for the amount, or to be more precise, the right to continue the suit already filed in the State was transferred to the plaintiff and, therefore, it related to property situate or at least to a thing to be done in the State. The question to my mind does not seem to be free from doubt, and I have not been able to lay my hands on any direct authority on the point. The counsel for the parties also have not been able to assist me in its decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "