BADAT AND CO. versus EAST INDIA TRADING CO.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 10-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
4 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
19 
into two parts, hearing on a broader view and later, if 
necessary, on facts, does not go to make a hearing as per-
fect as it would be desirable for a proper adjudication of 
the appeal. If parties know that once they obtain special 
leave without limitations they will be free to argue on 
facts, they will come prepared and will present the case as 
best a~ possible for their clients, and the Court too would 
be in a better position to decide. 
Of course, after hearing the appeal fully, this Court 
is in the best position as to how to dispose of the appeal. 
It can surely dispose of it by merely stating that it sees no 
reason to consider the findings of fact to be incorrect or it 
may consider those findings and express a different opi-
mon. 
I would, however, as stated earlier, not like to express 
anything with respect to how such an appeal be heard by 
this Court, when it is not doubted that this Court has full 
discretion to hear an appeal on facts and law and has, for 
similar reason laid down that the High Court has full 
power to review evidence when hearing an appeal against 
acquittal under s. 423 Cr. P.C. 
Appeal dismissed. 
BADA T AND 
CO. 
v. 
EAST INDIA TRADING CO. 
(K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MuoHOLKAR, 
JJ.) 
Foreign Award and /udgment-Suit filed 
in 
Romhay 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. 
!963 
Nihal Singh 
and Others 
v. 
State of 
Punjab 
Raghubar 
Dayal /. 
1963 
May, HJ 
1963 
Badat and 
Company 
v. 
East India 
Trading 
Company 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1964] 
The respondent was a partnership firn1 carrying on import and 
export business in Bombay. 
By t\vo 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 Arbi-
tration under the Rules of the Ameri~an Spice Trade Asso-
ciation printed on the reverse side thereof. 
This contract is 
made as of in l'few York." 
The appellant failed to supply turmeric in terms of the t\vo con-
:tracts 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 ) udge of the Bombay High 
Court \vho tried the suit held that it was not maintainable either 
()fl the foreign judgment or on the a\vards and dismissed the suit. 
The Division Bench on appeal held that the suit \Vas maintain-
able on the awards, though not on the judgment, as part of the 
cause of action had arisen in Bombay and the rele,·ant facts had 
been proved by the Public documents produced by the respondent 
.and the admissions made by the appellant and decreed the suit. 
Held, (per Dayal and Mudholkar )J.) The decision of the 
Single Judge of the High Court that the suit was not maintainable 
on the foreign judgment must be affirn1ed but on other grounds. 
Apart from the provisions 
of 
the Arbitration Protocol and 
Conventions Act, 1937, 
foreign 
awards and foreign judg1nents 
based upon a-Ward are enforceable in India on the sa1ne grounds 
and in the same circumstances in which they are enforceable in 
England under the Common. Law on grounds of justice, equity 
and good conscience. 
On the original side of the Bombay High 
Court English Co1nmon Law is also applicable under cl. 19 of the 
Letters Patent read with cl. XLI of the Charter of that Court. 
If the award is followed by a judgment which is rendered in a 
proceeding in which the person again.st whom judgn1ent is sought 
can take objections as to the validity of the award, the judgement 
will be enforceabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.