Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Badat and Co., Bombay Appellant
Versus
East India Trading Co., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1961.
10th May, 1963
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain Co. and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (Mr. Atul Setalvad, Advocate and M/s. V. J. Merchant and G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates of M/s. Garat and Co., with him), for Respondent.
-it would become impossible to carry on the business of the world if Courts refuse to act upon what was been done by other Courts of competent jurisdiction - Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538.
-it creates new obligation but does not extinguish the original cause of action for the suit - Badat & Co. v. East India Trading, AIR 1964 SC 538. Foreign Judgment involves no merger of the original cause of action.
-does not lie in Courts in India
-a domestic tribunal is not prevented from hearing the suit and giving a judgment not in conflict with the foreign judgment
-this rule lays down an important rule of construction of the defendants pleading and lays down the consequences where an allegation made in the plaint if disputed is not specifically denied by the defendant. Rule 3 lays down that the defendant must deal specifically with each allegations made in the plaint. Rule 4 lays down that such denial must not be evasive. The present Rule 5 lays down that if the denial of a fact is not specific, the said fact shall be taken to be admitted - Badat & Company v. Eastern India Trading Company, AIR 1964 SC 538; Deonath v. Devi Singh, AIR 1966 SC 292, in such an event the admission itself being proof, no other proof is necessary.
-in the matter of mofussil pleading in the interest of justice, but not in the big town where the pleadings are drafted by trained lawyers bestowing serious thoughts and precision. The discretion should be exercised to prevent obvious injustice to a party or to believe him from the result of an accidental slip or omission but not to help a party who designedly made vague denials and thereafter sought to rely upon them for non-suiting the plaintiff
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Jurisdiction to Enforce Foreign Judgments and Awards: The court emphasizes that a foreign judgment or award does not automatically merge into the original cause of action. Instead, it creates a new, independent cause of action that must satisfy specific legal conditions for enforcement in a domestic court (!) (!) .
Non-Merger of Original Cause of Action: Foreign judgments and awards do not extinguish the original cause of action; they are treated as separate enforceable rights. This non-merger principle is consistent across jurisdictions and is supported by legal doctrine and existing case law (!) (!) .
Enforceability of Foreign Awards: To enforce a foreign award, it must be complete and enforceable in the country where it was made, and must meet certain legal criteria—such as valid submission, conduct of arbitration, and adherence to the law of the country where the award was issued (!) (!) .
Conditions for Enforcement: The enforceability hinges on three main conditions: existence of a valid arbitration agreement, proper conduct of arbitration in accordance with that agreement, and the validity of the award under the law of the place where arbitration occurred (!) (!) .
Proof of Conditions: These conditions can be established through pleadings, documentary evidence, and official records. Properly drafted pleadings and admissible evidence, including certified copies of foreign judgments or awards, are crucial for satisfying these conditions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Construction of Pleadings: The court underscores the importance of specific and precise pleadings, especially in the original jurisdiction, to establish facts such as the existence of arbitration agreements, conduct of arbitration, and the legal validity of awards (!) (!) .
Finality and Enforcement of Awards: For an award to be enforceable, it must be final according to the law of the country where it was made. An award that is not final cannot serve as a basis for enforcement or as a cause of action in the domestic court (!) (!) .
Enforcement of Awards versus Judgments: An award can serve as a cause of action if it has attained finality; however, if the award has been converted into a judgment (e.g., through court confirmation), then enforcement is based on that judgment. The enforceability depends on the legal finality and the procedural steps followed in the country of origin (!) (!) (!) .
Jurisdictional Limits: The court clarifies that the cause of action arising from a foreign judgment or award is generally deemed to have arisen in the country where the judgment or award was made. Therefore, enforcement in a domestic court is subject to jurisdictional limits unless specific grounds are met (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Principles for Enforcement: The court highlights that enforcement is grounded in principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, and that the recognition of foreign judgments and awards is based on their status as creating enforceable rights, not merely on their formal recognition (!) (!) .
Procedural Requirements: Proper proof under the relevant law (such as certification and adherence to prescribed procedures) is essential for the admissibility of foreign judgments and awards in domestic courts. Certificates by authorized officials and compliance with statutory requirements are necessary to establish authenticity and character (!) (!) (!) .
Impact of Finality and Enforcement Procedures: The enforceability of foreign awards depends on their finality under the law of the country where they were made. Awards that are not final or are subject to challenge cannot be used as a basis for enforcement until they attain legal finality through proper proceedings (!) (!) .
Legal Effect of Court Confirmations: When a foreign award is confirmed by a court in the country of origin, it often transforms into a judgment, which then becomes enforceable as a domestic judgment. This process is necessary for enforcement in the domestic jurisdiction (!) (!) .
Legal Strategy in Enforcement: The choice to enforce a foreign judgment or award in domestic courts must consider jurisdictional principles, the finality of the award, and procedural compliance. Enforcing an award that is not final or not properly certified may not be permissible (!) .
Summary of Enforceability: Ultimately, enforceability hinges on satisfying procedural and substantive legal conditions—such as proper submission, conduct, validity, finality, and certification—whether the claim is based on the award itself or on a judgment derived from it (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : I regret my inability to agree with the judgment prepared by my brother Mudholkar, J.
2. This appeal by certificate raises the question of jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court entertain a suit on an award in respect whereof a judgment was made in a foreign court and other incidental questions.
3. The facts that have given rise to the present appeal may be briefly stated. I shall only narrate such facts which are relevant to the question raised, for in the pleadings a wider field was covered, but it has gradually been narrowed down when the proceedings reached the present stage. The appellants are Badat and Co., a firm formerly carrying on business at Bombay. The respondents, East India Trading Co., are a private limited company incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in the United States of America and having their registered office in the State of New York. The respondents instituted Suit No. 71 of 1954 against the appellant in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,884/4/10 with interest thereon. It was alleged in the plaint that by correspondence, the details whereof were given in the plaint, the appellants agreed to do business with the respondents on the terms of the American Spice Trade Association contract. Thereafter, by subsequent correspondence the parties entered into two different contracts whereunder the appellants agreed to sell to the respondents different quantities of Allepey Turmeric Fingers on agreed terms. Though the respondents forwarded to the appellants in respect of the said transactions two contracts in duplicate on the standard form issued by the said Trade Association with a request to the appellants to send them after having duly signed, the appellants failed to do so. Under the terms and conditions of the said Trade Association Contract, all claims arising under the contract should be submitted to, and settled by, arbitration under the rules of the said Association. It was stated that pursuant to a relevant rule of the said Association, the dispute was referred to arbitration and two awards were made in due course i.e., on July 12, 1949. Following the procedure prescribed for the enforcement of such awards in New York, the respondents initiated proceedings in the SC of the State of New York to have the said awards confirmed and a judgment entered thereon in the said Court. In due course, the said Court pronounced judgment confirming the said awards. On those allegations a suit was filed in the High Court of Bombay for recovery of the amounts payable under the said two awards by the appellants to the respondents. The suit was tried, in the first instance, by Mody, J. The learned Judge, inter alia, held that the suit on the foreign judgment would not lie in the Bombay High Court, as there was no obligation under the said judgment for the appellants to pay any amount to the respondents at any place within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Adverting to the claim based on the agreement resulting in the awards, the learned Judge observed that there was no proof of such agreement and that there were no admissions in the written-statement in regard to the facts sustaining such an agreement. On those findings he held that the respondents had failed to prove that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. As the suit was heard on merits also, he considered other issues and held that there was neither proof nor admissions in the written statement in regard to the alleged contracts. He found that the arbitrators and the umpire had jurisdiction to make the awards, but the said awards merged in the judgment and that the suit was not maintainable on the said two awards. It is not necessary to give the other findings of the learned judge, as nothing turns on them in the present appeal. In the result, the suit was dismissed with costs. On appeal, a Division Bench of the said Hi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
