Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

BADAT AND CO. vs. EAST INDIA TRADING CO.

SCR Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 19
Year/Volume: 1964/ Volume 4
Date of Judgment: 10 May 1963
Petitioner: BADAT AND CO.
Disposal Nature: Appeal Allowed
Neutral Citation: 1963 INSC 150
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Subba Rao,Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Mudholkar
Respondent: EAST INDIA TRADING CO.
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /39/1961
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Foreign Award and Judgment-Suit filed in Bombay High Court-Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit based on such documents.

The respondent company, which was incorporated in New York and carried on business in spices, brought a suit in the original side of the Bombay High Court against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,884-4-10 on the basis of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirming two awards obtained by it and also on the awards in the alternative.

The respondent was a partnership firm carrying on import and export business in Bombay. By two letters exchanged between them, the appellant and the respondent agreed to do business in turmeric fingers on the terms and conditions of the American Spice Trade Association, one of which was an arbitration clause which ran as follows :-

"All questions and controversies and all claims arising under this contract shall be submitted to and settled by Arbitration under the Rules of the American Spice Trade Association printed on the reverse side thereof. This contract is made as of in New York."

The appellant failed to supply turmeric in terms of the two contracts it entered into with the respondent. The respondent put the matter into arbitration in pursuance of the arbitration clause. The appellant took no part in it. The arbitrators gave the two awards in favour of the respondent for damages. The appellant did not pay. The respondent then took appropriate proceedings and got the awards confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The single ) Judge of the Bombay High Court who tried the suit held that it was not maintainable either on the foreign judgment or on the awards and dismissed the suit. The Division Bench on appeal held that the suit was maintainable on the awards, though not on the judgment, as part of the cause of action had arisen in Bombay and the relevant facts had been proved by the Public documents produced by the respondent .and the admissions made by the appellant and decreed the suit. 

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Foreign judgement
  • Injunction
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 1964 AIR 538 =