TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The price was agreed at US $200 per M.T. The goods were to be supplied through M/s Kotak and Company, Bombay (hereinafter `Kotak', for short ). M/s Prashant Agencies, Bombay were the brokers. The existence of the contract, to which Atlas, Oceandale and Kotak were the parties, is not in dispute. Kotak were at all times responsible for the performance on behalf of the final buyers Oceandale. The letter of credit was opened by Oceandale in favour of Kotak who then transferred it in favour of Atlas. The letter of credit was opened at US $203 whereas Kotak's purchase from Atlas was at US $200. It was agreed upon between Atlas and Kotak that the difference would be paid locally by Atlas to Kotak in Indian rupees. The time for shipment was exten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s expressly agreed and declared that the obtaining of the award from the arbitration, umpire or Board of Appeal, as the case may be, shall be a condition precedent to the right of either party hereto or of any person claiming under either of them to bring any action or other legal proceedings against the other of them in respect of any such dispute." Kotak appointed their own arbitrator and called upon Atlas to appoint their arbitrator. Both the parties did appoint their respective arbitrators. The arbitrators gave their award, published on 22nd June, 1987 as per the rules of GAFTA. The award directed Atlas to pay Kotak a sum of US $9600 with interest calculated thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 26th October, 1980 until t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere to be the same as were incorporated in the Standard Contract No.15 of GAFTA as effective on the date of the contract. Clause 27, entitled Arbitration, and finding its place in Standard Contract No.15 is also not in dispute. The law on the subject is stated in Russell on Arbitration (19th Edition, at page 50) is under :- "The agreement may arise by the incorporation of one document containing an arbitration clause in another under which the dispute arises. "Where parties by an agreement import the terms of some other document as part of their agreement those terms must be imported in their entirety...but subject to this: that if any of the imported terms in any way conflicts with the expressly agreed terms, the latter must prevail ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a referential incorporation was permissible and the clause was binding between the parties unless it was insensible, unintelligible or was inconsistent with the terms of the present contract. It is not the case of the appellant Atlas that they were not aware of the terms and conditions of the Standard Contract No.15 of GAFTA. Such a plea if at all it was sought to be raised then should have been raised specifically but that is not the case here. The High Court was therefore right in rejecting the only objection which was raised on behalf of the appellant Atlas before it. It was however contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the award should have been held to be unenforceable inasmuch as the very contract between the ....