India / 05 November 1981 / India, High Court of Bombay / European Grain and Shipping Ltd v. Bombay Extractions Ltd
Country | India |
Court | India, High Court of Bombay |
Date | 05 November 1981 |
Parties | European Grain and Shipping Ltd v. Bombay Extractions Ltd |
Applicable NYC Provisions | I | I(3) |
Source |
AIR 1983 Bom 36; (1982) 84 BOMLR 246 | http://www.indiankanoon.org (website of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as several High Courts) |
Languages | English |
Summary | Bombay Extractions Ltd (“Bombay Extractions”) entered into a contract with European Grain and Shipping Ltd (“European Grain”), which provided for arbitration in London, pursuant to the Rules of the Grain and Feed Trade Association. A dispute arose and European Grain initiated an arbitration proceeding against Bombay Extractions. The latter neither appointed its arbitrator nor participated in the arbitration proceedings in any other fashion. After an award was rendered in favour of European Grain, it sought to enforce it in India pursuant to the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act 1961 (the “1961 Act”). The Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay refused to enforce the award on the basis that the 1961 Act was inapplicable. The Single Judge held that the legal relationship between Bombay Extractions and European Grain was not “commercial” because it had not been designated as such by a provision of law or operative legal principle in India. European Grain appealed against the decision of the Single Judge to the High Court of Bombay. The High Court of Bombay allowed the appeal, ordering the enforcement of the award and holding that a legal relationship would be “commercial” if it concerns a trading activity. In the Court’s view, the 1961 Act was implemented to give effect to the NYC. Turning to Article I(3) NYC, the Court reasoned that the term “commercial” included “a trading activity, like buying and selling, which is involved in the instant case”. According to the Court, Indian law would treat the contract in this case as a commercial agreement. Finally, the Court noted that the United Kingdom was a party to the NYC and had been notified as such by the Central Government of India (therefore there was no issue as to the reciprocal application of the NYC). |
see also : |
Attachment (1)
Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |