SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.versusONGC LTD. AND ORS.

A                  SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD.
                                          v.
                             ONGC LTD. AND ORS.

                               DECEMBER 4, 1997

B          (J.S. VERMA, CJ, S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.]
              f

          Arbitration :

          Arbitration Act, 194(}-Sections 14(2) & 47-Contract to instal oil
C platf01111 at Bombay-Dispute-Arbitration at London-Award-Petition for
    direction to file the award in the High Cowt of Bombay-Allowed-On
    appeal, Held, the proceedings before the arbitrators concludes with the making
    of an award-curial law does not apply to the filing of an award-The
    contract between the parties to submit the dispute to the arbitrators and to
    honour the award are govemed by law of India-courts in India are entitled
D   to receive the award-Foreign Award (Recognition and Enforcement) Act,
    1961-Section 9(b ).

          The appellant and the first respondent entered into a contract to
    instal and commission on turnkey basis an oil platform at Bombay. The
E   contract stipulated in clause 17 that all the disputes or differences arising
    out of the contract shall be subject to the laws of India and the dispute
    between the parties shall be referred to arbitration and that the arbitration
    proceedings shall be held at London, U.K. in accordance with the
    provisions of International Chamber of Commerce.

F        A dispute arose and the appellant served a notice of arbitration to
  first respondent. The parties appointed their respective arbitrators and
  second respondent was nominated as an Umpire. The arbitrators having
  differed, the second respondent entered upon the reference and made his
  award. The first respondent filed a petition before the High Court of
G Bombay for issuance of a direction to the second respondent to file the
  award in that Court. The said petition was allowed against which the
  present appeal has been filed.

         The contention of appellant was that a direction to the second
    respondent to file his award in the Court could be given only by the Courts
H   administering the curial law, i.e. the courts in England and thus the
                                         186
            SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD.                     187
petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court of Bombay fell A
outside the jurisdiction of that Court.

      The contention of the first respondent was that the award having
been made, the procedural or curial law had ceased to have effect and
accordingly, the Courts administering the curial law had no jurisdiction
to issue direction to file the award in Court.                               B
      Dismissing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1.1. Curial law does not apply to the filing of an award in
the court. The Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 applies to the arbitration       C
agreement between the appellant and the first respondent and by reason
of Section 14(2) thereof, the Courts in India are entitled to receive the
award made by the second respondent. [198-D; 199-E]

      1.2. Curial law operates during the continuance of the proceedings
before the arbitrator to govern the procedure and conduct thereof. The D
Courts administering curial law have the authority to entertain applica-
tions by parties to arbitrations being conducted within their jurisdiction
for the purpose of ensuring that the procedure that is adopted in the
proceedings before the arbitrator conforms to the requirements of the
curial law and for reliefs incidental thereto. Such authority of the Courts E
administering the curial law ceases when the proceedings before the ar-
bitrator are concluded. The proceedings before the arbitrator commence
when he enters upon the reference and condude with the making of the
award. [196-B-D]

      1.3. An arbitrator is not obliged by law to file his award in Court but F
he may be asked by the party seeking to enforce the award to do so. The
enforcement process is subsequent to and independent of the proceedings
before the arbitrator. It is not governed by the curial or procedural law
that governed the procedure followed by the arbitrator in the conduct of
the arbitration. [196-E-F]
                                                                             G
                                    ,,,.
      2. The law which would apply to the filing of the award, to its
enforcement and to its setting aside would be the law governing the
agreement to arbitrate and the performance of that agreement. Having
regard to the clear terms of Clause 17 of the contract between the appellant
and the first respondent t!te. law governing the rights and obligations of H
    188                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A the parties,arising from their agreement to arbitrate, and, in particular,
    their obligation to submit disputes to arbitration and to honour the award,
    are governed by the law of India. (198-F-H]

          3. By reason of Section 9(b), the Foreign Awards (Recognition and
B   Enforcement) Act, 1961, does not apply to any award made on an arbitra-
    tion agreement governed by the law of India. Thus the said Act does not
    apply to the arbitration agreement between the appellant and the first
    respondent. [199-E-F]

            James Miller & Partners v. Whitworth Street Estates, (1970) A.C. 583,
C   distinguished.

         Ba11k Mel/at v. Helliniki Tech11ikit SA., (1984) 1 QB 291 and Naviera
    Amazo11ica Peruana SA. v. Compania !11tematio11al De Seguros Del Pern,
    (1988) 1 Lloyds Law Report 116, referred to.
D
          Law of Practice in Commercial Arbitration in England, by Mnstill and
    Boyd, Second Edition; and Dicey and Manis "The Conflict of Laws, 12th
    Edition'', referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8341 of
E   1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.96 of the Bombay High
    Court in Arbitration Petition No. 147 of 1995.

p        Soli J. Sorabjee, Shanti Bhushan, B. Dutta, Milon K. Banerjee, P.H.
    Parekh, Amit Dhingra, Nikhil Shakharande G. Joshi, G. Khandpal,
    Virendra and G.K. Banerjee for the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G          BHARUCHA, J. This appeal by special leave assails the correctness
    of the judgment and order of a lear~d single Judge of the High Court at
    Bombay. By the judgment and order the petition of the first respondent
    for ·the issuance of a direction to the second respondent to file the award
    that he had made as the umpire in arbitration proceedings between the
H   appellant and the first rcspcindcnt in that court was allowed .
                                                      •
    SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N .G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA, J .]                189

     Briefly stated, these are the facts relevant to the issue in the A
appeal :

      The appellant and the first respondent entered into a contract on 7th
September, 1983, whereunder the appellant agreed to install and commis-
sion on turnkey basis an oil platform at Bombay High, about 100 miles
north-west of Bombay. The contract stipulated the following :                     B
        "17.0. Laws/Arbitration

        17.L Applicable Laws

        All questions, disputes or differences arising under, out of or in        C
        connection with this Contract shall be subject to the laws of India.

        17.2. Arbitration

        If any dispute, difference or question shall at any time hereafter
        arise between the parties hereto or their respective representatives      D
        or assigns in respect of the construction of these presents or
        concerning anything herein contained or arising out of these
        presents or as to the rights, liabilities or duties of the said parties
        hereunder which cannot be mutually resolved by the parties, the
        same shall be referred to arbitration, the proceedings of which           E
        shall be held at London, U.K. Within 30 days of the receipt of the
        notice of intention of appointing arbitrators each party shall ap-
        point an arbitrator of its own choice and inform the other party.
        Before entering upon the arbitration, the two arbitrators shall
        appoint an umpire. In case the parties fail to appoint its arbitrator     F
        within 30 days from the receipt of a notice from the other party in
        this behalf or if any dispute in selection of umpire, the president
        of International Chamber of Commerce, Paris, shall appoint the
        arbitrator and/or the umpire as the case may be.

        The decision of the arbitrators and failing to an agreed decision G
        by them, the decision of the umpire shall be final and binding on
        the parties.

        The arbitration proceedings shall be held in accordance with the
        provision of International Chamber of Commerce and the rules H
    190                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           made thereunder as amended from time to time. The arbitration
            proceedings shall be conducted in English language."

           Disputes having arisen subsequent to the completion of the work
    under the contract, the appellant served notice of arbitration on the first
B   respondent and appointed Mr. Robert A. MacCrindle its arbitrator. The
    first respondent appointed Mr. Justice Chandrasekhar (Retired) its ar-
    bitrator. The arbitrators nominated the second respondent as the umpire.
    Preliminary hearings commenced. The appellant then applied to the
    Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court in London for leave to issue
    and serve on the first respondent an Originating Summons seeking an order
C   under Section 5 of the English Arbitration Act, 1979, to confirm that the
    arbitrators had the power to proceed with the arbitration in default of a
    defence having been served by the first respondent. A learned Judge of the
    Commercial Court granted to the first respondent leave to issue and serve
    the said summons. It was heard and decided in favour of the appellant.
D   Thereafter the first respondent's defence was served, and a summons was
    issued on the first respondent's behalf in the Commercial Court to set aside
    its earlier orders. The application made by the first responden't was
    decided on 23rd July, 1993 by Potter, J. (The judgment and order is
    reported in (1994) I Lloyd's Law Reports 45). The arbitrators having
    differed, the second respondent entered upon the reference and, on 27th
E   June, 1995, made his award. The award was served on the first respondent
    on 10th July, 1995.

          On 26th July, 1995, the first respondent filed in the High Court at
    Bombay a petition praying that the second respondent be directed, under
F   Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, to file the award in that
    court. The first respondent submitted that the award was invalid, unenfor-
    ceable and liable to be set aside under the provisions of the said Act. The
    learned Judge, as aforestated, allowed the petition.

          The decision rendered by Potter, J. in the Commercial Court is of
G some importance because the jurisdiction of the English courts was dis-
    cussed. The learned Judge said :

            "Before stating my reasons for that conclusion and then turning to
            the "frustration" argument, and because questions have arisen as
H           to whether English law or Indian law is appropriate to be applied
SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA,J.]                191

   at various stages of this application, l propose briefly to advert to   A
   the various laws potentially applicable to the various aspects of the
   arbitral relationship which may fall for consideration in cases of
   this kind.

       (1) 9I'he proper law of the underlying contract, i.e. the law
   governing the contract which creates the substantive righ'ts and        B
   obligations of the parties out of which the dispute has arisen.

       (2) The proper Jaw of the arbitration agreement, i.e. the law
   governing rights and obligations of the parties arising from their
   agreement to arbitrate and, in particular, their obligation to submit   C
   their disputes to ;;.rbitration and to honour an award. This includes
   inter alia questions as to the validity of the arbitration agreement,
   the validity of the notice of arbitration, the constitution of the
   tribunal and the question whether an award lies within the juris-
   diction of the arbitrator.
                                                                           D
       (3) The proper law of the reference, i.e. the law governing the
   contract which regulates the individual reference to arbitration.
   This is an agreement subsidiary to but separate from the arbitration
   agreement itself, coming into effect by the giving of a notice of
   arbitration from which point a new set of mutual obligations in E
   relation to the conduct of the reference arise upon lines canvassed
   in the Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau a11d Masc11inenfabrik v. South India
   Shipping Corporation, (1981) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 253 at p. 263 and
   developed by Mr. Justice Mustill (as he then was) in Black Clawson
   Intemational Ltd. v. Papierwork Waldhof-Aschaffenburg, A.G.
   (1981) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 446. That law governs the question whether F
   by reason of subsequent circumstance the parties have been dis-
   charged (whether by repudiation or frustration) from their obliga-
   tion to continue with the reference of the individual dispute, while
   leaving intact the continuous agreement to refer future disputes
   pursuant to the arbitration agreement.                               G.

      (4) The curial law, i.e. the law governing the arbitration
   proceedings themselves, the manner in which the reference is to
   be conducted. It governs the procedural powers and duties of the
   arbitrators, questions of evidence and the determination of the
   proper law of the contract.                                      H
    192                  .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A              . In respect of many arbitrations, the applicable law will be the
            same in all four cases. (1) will usually be decisive as to (2), in the
            absence of an express contrary choice; (2) and (3) will very·rarely
            differ. However, as to (4), it is not uncommon to encounter the
            incidence of a different curial law in cases where the parties have
            made an express choice for arbitration (frequently in London) in
B
            a jurisdiction divorced from the jurisdiction with which the con-
            tract in (1) has most real connection.

                In this case, as to (1), the parties have made an express choice
            of Indian law as the proper law of the contract. As to (2), it seems
c           to me likely (although it is not necessary finally to decide) that the
            proper law of the arbitration agreement is similarly Indian law,
            sinee the arbitration agreement is part of the substance of the
            underlying contract and the terms of cl. 17.1 are clear in that
            respect. As to (3), it matters not for the purposes of this application
            whether the governing law is English or Indian law, because Mr.
D
            Dunning has conceded before me that there is no material dif-
            ference between the two so far as applicable to the doctrine of
            frustration upon which he relies (see also par. 7 of the affidavit of
            Mr. Majumdar to that effect.) .

E              As to (4), the curial law, it seems to me plain that it is the law
            of England. There is, it is true, no express choice of curial law.
            However, there is a clear requirement that the arbitration proceed-
            ings be held in London. In the absence of express agreement, there
            is a strong prima f acie presumption that the parties intend the
F           curial law to be the law of the "seat" of the arbitration, i.e. the
            place at which the arbitration is to be conducted, on the ground
            that is the country most closely connected with the proceedings -
            see Mustill and Boyd, 2nd ed., p. 64."

          Neither of the parties having filed an appeal from the judgment of
G Potter, J., its findings bind them. Based upon these findings, it was con-
    tended by Mr. SJ. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the appellant, that the
    petition filed by the first respondent in the High Court at Bombay fell
    outside the jurisdiction of that Court for a direction to the second respon-
    dent to file his award in court could be given only by the courts administer-
H   ing the curial law, that is to say the courts in England. The answer of Mr.
    SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA, J.]                 193

Banerjee, learned counsel for the first respondent, is that the award having A
been made, the procedural or curial law had ceased to have effect and,
accordingly, the courts administering the curial law had no jurisdiction to
issue to the second respondent a direction to file his award therein.

     This, then, is the central issue in the appeal : what is the area of
operation of the curial law.                                                     B

       In Bank Mellat v. Helliniki Teclmiki SA., (1984) 1 QB 291, the Court
of Appeal said that the fundamental principle was that in the absence of
any contractual provision to the contrary, "the procedural (or curial) law
governing arbitrations" was that of the forum of the arbitration, since this     C
was the system of law with which the agreement to arbitrate in the par-
ticular forum would have its closest connection. Parties to international
arbitrations might well choose London as a convenient neutral forum and
''English law will, as the cwial law, apply to the conduct of the arbitration;
and the parties will, by holding their arbitration here, subject themselves
for that purpose to English law...... " (Emphasis supplied.)                     D

      In Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA. v. Compania International De
Seguros Del Peru, (1988) 1 Lloyds Law Report 116, Lord Justice Kerr
summarised the state of the relevant jurisprudence thus :

            "A All contract~ which provide for arbitration and contain a
                                                                                 E
        foreign element may involve three potentially relevant systems of
        law. (1) The law governing the substantive contract. (2) The law
        governing the agreement to arbitrate and the performance of that
        agreement. (3) The law goveming the conduct of the arbitration. In
        the majority of cases all three will be the same. But (1) will often     F
        be different from (2) and (3). And occasionally, but rarely, (2) may
        also differ from (3)."

He said, ''Prima f acie, i.e. in the absence of some express and clear
provision to the contrary, it must follow that an agreement that the curial G
or procedural law of w1 arbitration is to be the law of X has the consequence
that X is also to be the "seat" of the arbitration. The lex fori is then the law
of X, and accordingly X is the agreed forum of the arbitration. A further
consequence is then that the Courts which are competent to control or assist
the arbitration are the Courts exercising jurisdiction at X". The learned
Judge observed that there was no reason in theory which precluded "parties H
    194                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A to agree that an arbitration shall be held at a place or in country X but
    subject to the procedural laws of Y" (Emphasis supplied.)

          In the Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration in England,
    Second Edition by Mustill and Boyd, there is a chapter on "The applicable
    law and the jurisdiction of the court''. Under the subtitle, "Laws Governing
B   The Arbitration", it is said,

            "An agreed reference to arbitration involves two groups of obliga-
            tions. The first concerns the mutual obligations of the parties to
            submit future disputes, or an existing· dispute to arbitration, and
c           to abide by the award of a tribunal constituted in accordance with
            the agreement. It is now firmly established that the arbitration
            agreement which creates these obligations is a separate contract,
            distinct from the substantive agreement in which it is usually
            embedded, capable of surviving the termination of the substantive
D           agreement and susceptible of premature termination by express or
            implied consent, or by repudiation or frustration, in much the same
            manner as in more ordinary forms of contract. Since this agreement
            has a distinct life of its own, it may in principle be governed by a
            proper law of its own, which need not be the same as the law
E           governing the substantive contract.


                 T7ie second group of obligations, consisting of what is generally
            referred to as the 'curial law' of the arbitration, concerns the manner
            in which the parties and the arbitrator are required to conduct the
F           reference of a particular dispute. According to the English theory
            of arbitration, these rules are to be ascertained by reference to the
            express or implied terms of the agreement to arbitrate. This being
            so, it will be found in the great majority of cases that the curial
            law, i.e. the law governing the conduct of the reference, is the same
            as the law governing the obligation to arbitrate. It is, however, open
G            to the parties to submit, expressly or by implication, the conduct
             of the reference to a different law from the one governing the
             underlying arbitration agreement. In such a case, the court looks
            first at the arb(tration agreement to see whether the dispute is one
            which should be arbitrated, and which has validly been made the
H           subject of the reference; it then looks to the curial law to see how
SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA,J.]                  195

   that reference should be conducted; and then returns to the first law    A
   in order to give effect to the resulting award.

   xxxxx                           xxxxx                      xxxxx

      It may therefore be seen that problems arising out of an
   arbitration may, at least in theory, call for the application of any B
   one or more of the following laws -

      1. The proper law of the contract, i.e. the law governing the
   contract which creates the substantive rights of the parties, in
   respect of which the dispute has arisen.
                                                                            c
      2. The proper law of the arbitration agreement, i.e. the law
   governing the obligation of the parties to submit the disputes to
   arbitration, and to honour an award.

      3. 17ie curial law, i.e. the law governing the conduct of the D
   individual reference.

   xxxxx                    xxxxx                     xxxxx

       (1) The proper law of the arbitration agreement governs the
   validity of the arbitration agreement, the question whether a dis-    E
   pute lies within the scope of the arbitration agreement; the validity
   of the notice of arbitration; the constitution of the tribunal; the
   question whether an award lies within the jurisdiction of the
   arbitrator; the formal validity of the award; the question whether
   the parties have been discharged from any obligation to arbitrate
   future disputes.
                                                                         F

       2. The cwial law governs; ihe manner in which the reference is
   to be conducted; the procedural powers and duties of the arbitrator;
   questions of evidence; the detennination of the proper law of the
   contract.                                                                G
      3. The proper law of the reference governs: the question
   whether the parties have been discharged from their obligation to
   continue with the reference of the individual dispute.

   xxxxx                   xxxxx                    xx:xxx                  H
    196                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A               In the absence of express agreement, there is a strong prima
            f acie presumption that the parties intend the curial law to be the law
            of the 'seat' of the arbitration, i.e. the place at which the arbitration
            is to be conducted, on the ground that that is the country most closely
            connected with the proceedings. So in order to detennine the curial
            law in the absence of an express choice by the parties it is first
B           necessary to detennine the seat of the arbitration, by const/Uing the
            agreement to arbitrate. (Emphasis supplied.)

        The conclusion that we reach is that the curial law operates during
  the continuance of the proceedings before the arbitrator to govern the
C procedure and conduct thereof. The courts administering the curial law
  have the authority to entertain applications by parties to arbitrations being
  conducted within their jurisdiction for the purpose of ensuring that the
  procedure that is adopted in the proceedings ·before the arbitrator
  conforms to the requirements of the curial law and for reliefs incidental
D thereto. Such authority of the courts administering the curial law ceases
  when the proceedings before the arbitrator are concluded.

           The proceedings before the arbitrator commence when he enters
    upon the reference and conclude with the making of the award. As the
E   work by Mustill and Boyd aforementioned puts it, with the making of a
    valid award the arbitrator's authority, powers and duties in the reference
    come to an end and he is ''functus officio" (page 404). The arbitrator is not
    obliged by law to file his award in court but he may be asked by the party
    seeking to enforce the award to do so. The need to file an award in court
    arises only if it is required to be enforced, and the need to challenge it
F   arises if it is being enforced. The enforcement process is subsequent to and
    independent of the proceedings before the arbitrator. It is not governed by
    the curial or procedural law that governed the procedure that the arbitrator
    followed in the conduct of the arbitration.

G          Mr. Sorabjee relied upon observations in Dicey and Morris on "171e
    Conflict of Laws, 12th Edition". The first Rule under the heading "Arbitra-
    tion: in the Chapter on "Arbitration and Foreign Awards" reads thus:

             "Rule 57 - (1) The validity, effect and interpretation of an arbitra-
H            tion agreement are governed by its applicable law.
    SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA, J.)               197

        (2) The law governing arbitration proceedings is the law chosen A
        by the parties, or, in the absence of agreement, the law of the
        country in which the arbitration is held."

In discussing clause (2) of the Rule aforementioned, this is stated :

                                                                               B
        "The procedural law of the arbitration will determine· how the
        arbitrators are to be appointed, in so far as this is not regulated
        in the arbitration agreement; the effect of one party's failure to
        appoint an arbitrator, e.g. whether an arbitrator may be appointed
        by a court, or whether the arbitration can proceed before the sole
        arbitrator appointed by the other party, and whether the authority     C
        of an arbitrator can be revoked. That law will also determine what
        law the arbitrators are to apply, and whether they are expected or
        allowed to decide ex aequo et bona or as amiables compositeurs,
        and, if not, whether the parties can give them this power or impose
        on them this duty. That law will also determine the procedural         D
        powers and duties of the arbitrators, e.g. whether they must hear
        oral evidence (but not their jurisdiction to decide the dispute,
        which is governed by the arbitration agreement and the law ap-
        plicable to it) or whether the arbitrators have been guilty of
        misconduct. It will also determine what judicial remedies are avail-
        able to a party who wishes to apply for security for costs or for      E
        discovery or who wishes to challenge the award once it has been
        rendered and before it is sought to enforce it abroad, and the
        circumstances in which judicial remedies may be excluded." (Em-
        phasis supplied.)
                                                                               F
       Mr. Sorabjee submitted, relying upon the proposition that the pro-
cedural law would determine what judicial remedies were available to a
party "who wishes to challenge the award once it has been rendered and
before it is sought to enforce it abroad'', that the court that administered
the curial law of the arbitration had the jurisdiction to entertain a challenge
to the award and, therefore, the jurisdiction to receive it. The footnote G
relative to the above proposition (at page 583) reads thus :

        "Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd. v. James Miller &
        Pmtners Ltd., ( 1970) A. C. 583 (English remedies not available in
        Scots arbitration)."                                               H
     198                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

. A Mr. Banerjee submitted, and it seems to us, correctly, that the case of
   James Miller & Pamers v. Whitwonh Street Estates, (1970) A.C. 583, does.
   not bear out the proposition; The facts of the case, shortly put, were these
   : A contract was entered into between an English company, Whitworth,
   and a Scottish company, James Miller. The Scottish company was to carry
 B out work at the English company's premises in Scotland. The contract did
   not proVide for the place of arbitration or its procedure. Disputes arose
   between the parties and were referred to arbitration. The arbitration was
   held in Scotland, in accordance with Scottish law. The English company
   asked the arbitrator to state his award in the form of a special case for the
   decision of the English courts. The arbitrator refused to do so on the
 C ground. that the arbitration was a Scottish arbitration, and he issued his
   final award. The issue was whether the arbitrator should be required to
   state his award in the form of a special case. The case was, therefore,
   concerned with the question of which law governed the proceedings before
   the arbitrator and not with the question of which law governed proceedings
 D to set aside an award.

            We think that our conclusion that the curial law does not apply to
     the filing of an award in court must, accordingly, hold good. We find
     support for the conclusion in the extracts from Mustill and Boyd which we
 E   have quoted earlier. Where the law governing the conduct of the reference
     is different from the law governing the underlying arbitration agreement,
     the court looks to the arbitration agreement to see if the dispute is
     arbitrable, then to the curial law to see how the reference should be
     conducted, " and then returns to the first law in order to give effect to the
     resulting award."
 F
          The law which would apply to the filing of the award, to its enforce-
   ment and to its setting aside would be the law governing the agreement to
   arbitrate and the performance of that agreement. Having regard to the
   clear terms of Clause 17 of the contract between the appellant and the first
 G respondent, we are in no doubt that the law governing the contract and the
   law governing the rights and obligations of the parties arising from their
   agreement to arbitrate, and, in particular, their obligation to submit dis-
   putes to arbitration and to honour the award, are governed by the law of
   India; nor is there any dispute in this behalf. Section 47 of the Indian
 H Arbitration Act, 1940, reads thus :
    SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUS. v. O.N.G.C. LTD. [BHARUCHA, J.]                    199

        "47. Act to apply to all arbitrations - Subject to the provisions of       A
        Section 46, and save in so far as is otherwise provided by any law
      , for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply
        to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder :

               Provided that an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with
           the consent of all the parties interested be taken into consideration   B
           as a compromise or adjustment of a suit by any Court before which
           the suit is pending."

The only other statute which is required to be considered in the context of
the provisions of Section 47 of the 1940 Act is The Foreign Awards                 C
(Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. For the purposes of determin-
ing whether the provisions of the 1940 Act are subject to the provisions of
the 1961 Act, Section 9 is relevant. It reads thus :

           "9. Saving - Nothing in this Act shall -
                                                •                                  D
           (a) prejudice any rights which any person would Iiave had of
           enforcing in India of any award or of availing himself in India of
           any award if this Act had not been passed, or

           (b) apply to any award made on an arbitration agreement governed
           by the law of India."                                                   E
By reason of Section 9(b), the 1961 Act does not apply to any award made
on an arbitration agreement governed by the law of India. The 1961 Act,
therefore, does not apply to the arbitration agreement between the appel-
lant and the first respondent. The 1940 Act, applies to it and, by reason of
Section 14(2) thereof, the courts in India are entitled to receive the award       F
made by the second respondent. We must add in the interests of complete-
ness that it is not the case of the appellant that the High Court at Bombay

      .
lacked the territorial jurisdiction to do so .

      In the result, the appeal must fail, and it is dismissed with costs.         G
S.V.K.I.                                                    Appeal dismissed.