1980 (10) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the Court was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case in exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent?

Held that:- Section 3 of 1937 Act is in pari materia with s. 3 of 1961 Act. It, therefore, becomes crystal clear that s. 3 of the 1937 Act would only be attracted if there is a submission pursuant to an agreement to that effect. In fact, the decision in V/O Tractoro-export, Moscow, (Supra) made it necessary for the Parliament to amend s. 3 of the 1961 Act. In this case we are concerned with s. 3 of the 1937 Act which is not amended. It must, therefore, receive the same interpretation which an identical provision received at the hands of this Court. Viewed from that angle, in this case while there is an agreement as contemplated by First Schedule to 1937 Act, there is no submission made in pursuance of such agreement and, therefore, the application of the respondent could not have been entertained under s. 3 of the 1937 Act. As far as the 1961 Act is concerned, Mr. Majumdar conceded that Yugoslavia has not ratified the protocol pursuant to which 1961 Act was enacted and, therefore, the respondent cannot maintain its application under s. 3 of the 1961 Act.

Having examined the matter from all angles it is clear that both the learned single judge and the division bench of the High Court were in error in granting stay of the suit in this matter and, therefore, Civil Appeal is allowed and the stay of suit granted by the learned single judge and affirmed by the division bench of the Calcutta High Court is vacated.