CHANDURKAR, J. :- This appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge rejecting petition filed by the appellants for enforcement of a foreign award u/S.6 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act").

2. It is not necessary for the purpose of the appeal to refer to the details of the transactions in respect of which a contract in writing was entered into on 16th Sept. 1976 between the appellants and the respondents through the brokers Marshall Produce Brokers Co. Pvt. Ltd., under which the respondents agreed to ship to the appellants 250 metric tons of ground-nut extractions of the quality specified in the contract at a Price of £99 per tonne. The delivery was to be made to the petitioners at Bombay in Jan./Feb. 1977 at the appellants' option. One of the terms of the contract provided that "this contract is made under the terms and conditions effective at the date of the Grain And Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), Baltic Exchange Chambers, 28 St. Mary Axe, London, Contract No. 119". It was also provided by the said contract that contract No. 119 was made a part of the contract except so far as it was modified and the modification indicated was that the extension of delivery cl. No. 5 was to be deleted. This contract was signed by the respondents at Bombay and by the appellants at London where it was sent by the brokers.

3. GAFTA Contract No. 119 contained an arbitration clause, the material part of which reads as follows :-

"Any dispute arising out of or under this contract shall be settled by arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Grain and Feed Trade Association Ltd. No. 125 such Rules forming part of this contract and of which both parties hereto shall be deemed to be cognisant."

GAFTA Contract No. 119 also contrains a clause regarding domicile. Under that clause contract No. 119 is, by agreement, deemed to have been made in England and to be performed there, any correspondence in reference to the offer, the acceptance, the place of appointment or otherwise notwithstanding, and the Courts of England or Arbitrators appointed in England, as the case may be, shall, except for the purpose of enforcing any Award made in pursuance of the clause hereto, have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes which may arise under the contract".

4. Admittedly the respondents were not in a position to ship the goods even during the extended period up to April/ May 1977 and by letter dated 18th April 1977 the respondents admitted their liability to pay damages but wanted to settle the outstanding contracts as per the original contract period. A dispute having arisen, it had to be referred to arbitration in accordance with rules of GAFTA. An arbitration was claimed by the appellants who duly appointed its Arbitrator and called upon the respondents to appoint their Arbitrator. The respondents, however, having failed to do so, as contemplated by the rules, GAFTA appointed one Mr. D. Waller as an Arbitrator for the respondents and a notice dated 21st July 1977 was issued by the Arbitrators calling upon the respondents to file a written statement not later than 15th August 1977 and to remain present in the office on 18th Aug. 1977 for proceeding with the arbitration. Mr. Waller had also independently written to the respondents on 26th July 1977 intimating to the respondents that he had been appointed by the Grain And Feed Trade Association as an Arbitrator in a dispute with European Grain and Shipping Ltd. In connection with the contract dated 16th Sept. 1976 and that the meeting with the buyers' Arbitrator was, fixed for 18th Aug. and it was necessary for the respondents to send him all the evidence, so that he could do his best to protect their interest.

5. The respondents, however, seem to have ignored the arbitration proceedings wholly. The Arbitrators proceeded to decide the dispute and made an award on 8th Sept. 1977 awarding a sum of