LAKSHMI NARAIN RAMNIVAS Vs. MANNESMAN EXPORT G M B H
LAWS(CAL)-1959-12-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 11,1959

LAKSHMI NARAIN RAMNIVAS Appellant
VERSUS
MANNESMAN EXPORT G.M.B.H. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.N.Ray, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for stay of further proceedings in Suit No. 1811 of 1957. The suit was filed on 18-11-1957. The suit arises in respect of a contract of carriage contained in the Bill of Lading No. 10 dated 8-4-1956 which was issued on behalf of the defendant No. 4. Defendant No. 5 was the agent of defendant No. 4. The two petitioners are defendants Nos. 4 and 5, namely, Lloyd Triestino and Turner Morrison and Co. Private Limited.
(2.) THE Bill of Lading contains the following clause: "All requests for compensation in respect of damage, shortage, deterioration, loss of goods loaded shall be submitted for friendly settlement to the agencies of the Shipping Company at the place of discharge. Failing a friendly agreement both the shipper and the receiver as well as any other party interested in the cargo, if intending to take legal steps against the company, for the above mentioned causes and in general for whatsoever other causes, may summon them before the Judicial Authorities of Trieste or Genoa hereby expressly renouncing the competence of any other Judicial Authorities. No exception must be made to this exclusive competence even if the company is sued party (defendant) by reason or connection of contingency of the Law Suits". The petitioners in the written statement have taken the plea that by Italian law each of the Courts at Trieste and at Genoa or in the alternative, the Court at Trieste or the Court at Genoa has jurisdiction to entertain and try the issues in this suit beween these defendants. The plaintiff, it is alleged by the defendants in the written statement could according to Clause 31 of the Contract of Carriage have brought the suit in the Court at Trieste or in the Court at Genoa and not in this Court. In other words, the petitioners seek to enforce the covenant for adjudication of disputes by a foreign Court.
(3.) IT is well settled that a covenant containing a Clause 9 this nature by which arbitration of a foreign Court is contemplated is as much enforceable as a covenant containing the clause for arbitration by a foreign Tribunal or a foreign body of arbitrators.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.