( 1 ) THIS Revision Application raises an interesting question of law as regards the jurisdiction of Courts in India to entertain an application for filing a foreign award under sec. 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Foreign Awards Act for the sake of brevity ). The petitioners of this Revision Application were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984 while respondent No. 1 in this Revision Application was the petitioner in that arbitration petition. Respondent No. 2 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 3 while respondent No. 3 in this Revision Application was respondent No. 4 in the Arbitration petition. For the sake of convenience I shall refer to the respective parties by their respective positions in the original Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts leading to the filing of this Revision Application may be briefly stated as follows:-M/s. Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia a Corporation incorporated under the Laws of Liberia the original petitioner by an agreement dated 4 sold a vessel named Saudi Cloud to M/s. Orri Navigation Lines of Saudi Arabia Jeddah (original respondent No. 2) through the Orient Middle East Lines Ltd. Saudi Arabia Jeddah (original respondent No. 1) There was a provision in the agreement between the parties to refer the disputes arising under the said agreement to arbitration in England. Certain disputes arose between them and therefore the matter was referred to arbitrators in England. The arbitrators gave an award on 25-8-1983 directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay U. S. $ 185 518 towards balance of purchase price etc. and $ 1172 as costs to the petitioner. The directions it seems were not carried out and therefore. the petitioners filed Arbitration Petition No. 1 of 1984 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Bhavnagar against four respondents respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being the petitioners in this Revision Application and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the Arbitration petition being respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this Revision Application. Those two respondents were joined as parties in that petition on the allegation that the vessel was attempted to be sold by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 had attempted to sell the said vessel to respondent No. 4 The application in question was filed under sec. 5 of the Foreign Awards Act. The vessel in question was brought at the port Alang in Bhavnagar District for the purpose of scrapping the same. The sale price of the vessel was to be paid by respondent No. 3 to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner prayed for pronouncement of judgment on the award against respondent No. 81 and/or respondent No. 12 for the amount awarded by the arbitrators and also prayed for Certain interim reliefs. The learned trial Judge granted lad-interim relief restraining the respondents from breaking the vessel and restraining respondent No. 3 from making payments to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Notices were issued to the respondents. The ad-interim relief granted by the trial Court was modified. An appeal against the said order of interim relief is filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 being Appeal From Order No. 155 of 1984 which is pending before this Court. I do not propose to refer to the question about the legality propriety or otherwise of the order granting ad-interim relief in this Revision Application because those questions will be decided in that Appeal From Order which is kept pending till the decision of this Revision Application

( 3 ) A contention was raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the Court at Bhavnagar had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition because respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not carrying on any business whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhavnagar. It seems that respondent No. 3 did not appear to oppose the application. Respondent No. 4 is having in H