LexTRANSOCEAN SHIPPING AGENCY (P) LTD. versus BLACK SEA SHIPPING AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
TRANSOCEAN SHIPPING AGENCY (P) LTD.
v.
BLACK SEA SHIPPING AND ORS.
JANUARY 14, 1998
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement), Act 1961 : Section
2(b).
C
Foreign Award-Enforcement of-Notification declared reciprocal
territories "to which the said Convention applies" S. 2(b)-"Convention"
in S. 2(b) referred to the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign awards made at New York on 10-6-1958 to which lndia was a
signatory-USSR, as it then was, acceded to the New York Convention on
D 24-8-1960-Ukraine acceded to the New York Convention 011 10-10-1960-
As per notification dated 7-2-1972 issued under S.2 by Ministry of Foreign
('-;
Trade, Government of India regarding reciprocating territory, awards made
in the territories of USSR could be enforced in lndia under the Act-
Dissolution of USSR took place in or around December 1991-Held: on
dissolution of USSR there was no requirement for issue of a new notification
E under S.2 recognising Ukraine as a reciprocating territory-Hence, award
made in Ukraine is a foreign award which can be enforced in India under
the Act. -
Section 7(/)(a)(iv)-Foreign award-Challenge of-Burden of proof-
Party seeking to enforce award filed affidavit in High Court under R. 80 l
F in Ch. XLJII of Bombay High Court Rules dealing with the Rules under the
Foreign Award Act-Party challenging the award failed to put up its case
before arbitrator and also failed to discharge burden before High Court-
Party challenging award sought permission to produce fresh documents or
evidence before Supreme Court for the first time to prove its case-Held: Jn
G the circumstances of the case, party challenging the award cannot be permitted
to do so-Bombay High Court Rules, R. 801 Ch. XL/II-Practice and
Procedure.
Section 7 (I)( a) (iv )-Foreign award-Enforcement-Challenge of-On
the ground that the sole arbitrator was a high-ranking officer of the opposite
H party and award given by such arbitrator could not be enforced in India
130
TRANS. SHIP. AGENCY (P) LTD v. BLACK SEA SHIPJNG
131
because it would be against public policy-Parties agreed to be governed A
by the law of the county where arbitration was held-Held: In the circumstances
of the case, there is no violation of any public policy in enforcing the award
in India when it was valid under the law of that country-Further,
appointment of officer of one of the parties to the arbitration agreement, as
a sole arbitrator, does not ipso facto make the arbitration or the award B
-- !--
contrary to any public policy, especially if the officer had not personally
handled any of the disputed transactions and is impartial.
The lst respondent, who was a wholly owned company of the then
Government of USSR, appointed the appellants as its shipping agents for its
business of shipping and carriage of goods to and from various India ports. c
In or around December, 1991, dissolution of the USSR took place.
Several Socialist Republics, which had formed a part of the USSR, became
~
independent Sovereign States. The State of Ukraine also thus became an
independent Sovereign State. The lst respondent company became a company
,:""-
owned by the State of Ukraine.
D
On 18-5-1992 an agency agreement was executed between the appellants
and the lst respondent, which contained an arbitration clause requiring the
disputes to be referred to arbitration of the country where the owners were
registered.
E
The Convention referred to in Section 2(b) of the Foreign Award
(Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 is the Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Awards made at New York on l 0-6-1958 to
which India was a signatory. The USSR, as it then was, acceded to the New
York Convention on 24-8-1980. Ukraine acceded to the New York Convention
,..(
on 10-10-1960. A notification dated 7-2-1972 was issued under Section 2 of F
'
the Act by the Ministry of Foreign Trade, Government of India regarding
reciprocating territory whereby awards made in the territories of USSR
could be enforced in India under the Act.
Disputes arose between the appellants and the 1st respondent and, G
· therefore, the 1st respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement
"""'(
dated 18-5-1992. The second respondent was appointed as sole arbitrator to
settle the disputes by arbitration at Ukraine. The appellants, however, did not
file nay objections or reply to the statementExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.