Holding

A charter party agreement existed and it contained a valid arbitration clause, making the application under Section 45 justified.

Summary

Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd (appellant) entered into a charter party with Kola Shipping Ltd (respondent) to load 13,500 MT of sorghum at Kakinada for shipment to Cotonou, but only 1,100 MT was loaded because the export order from Niger could not be obtained. A dispute arose over demurrage and compensation, leading to multiple suits in Indian courts. The respondent invoked Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to arbitration in London under the English Arbitration Act, 1996, and to stay the pending suit. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the application, finding that a charter party existed and contained a valid arbitration clause. The appellant challenged the existence of the charter party and the arbitration agreement, but the Supreme Court held that the charter party was evident from the fixture note, bill of lading and correspondence, and that the arbitration clause was enforceable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courts' orders and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The existence of a charter party agreement between the parties.
Whether the charter party contained a valid arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether the court could stay the suit and refer the dispute to arbitration without the original charter party document.
Whether the appellant's contentions regarding the absence of an arbitration clause were tenable.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 16, s. 45, s. 7, s. 8
English Arbitration Act, 1996s. 30, s. 31

Subjects

charter partyarbitration agreementSection 45stay of proceedingsinternational commercial arbitrationdemurrage disputeEnglish Arbitration Act

Judgment

•-t .
. . ,,

[2008] 13 S. C.R. 925

M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED-, A
v.
KOLA SHIPPING LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 5796 of 2008)

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
- B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI,
JJ.]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - ss. 45 and 7 -
Export of sorghum to State of Niger by appellant - Negotia- c
tions for export order-Appellant agreeing to load and respon-
dent agreeing to carry 13, 500 tons cargo from Kakinada to
port of Cotonou - However, only 1100 MT cargo loaded as
appellant could not get export order from Niger - Offer of de-
murrage by appellant - Dispute between parties over quan-
D
tum of demurrage - Several litigations before Indian Courts -
Application uls. 45 by respondent to refer the dispute between
parties to arbitration in London under provisions of English
Arbitration Act, 1996 and stay all further proceedings in suit
pending arbitration - Allowed by courts below - Justification
of- Held: Justified - Correspondence between the parties as E
also fixture note and bill of lading signed by parties lead to a
conclusion that Charter Party Agre{!ment existed between
parties~ Agreement provided that disputes arising out of char-
, ;, ter party to be referre(j to arbitration in London under the En-
glish Act - Said agreement was not null and void or inopera- ·F
five or incapable of being performed - More so, appellant
admitted that he had signed on the front page of Charter Party
Agreement.
Appellant-manufacturer and exporter of food prod-
G
ucts was to export sorghum-cargo to the State of Niger. It
I negotiated with the head of the State for the export order.
.' --. Appellant and the respondent entered into an agreement
through Brisk Marine Services. Appellant promised to load
925 H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 13,500 MT of the cargo at Kakinada Port for transporta-
tion to Cotonou within the stated period. The respondent
issued bill of lading. As per the terms and conditions of
the Charter Party Agreement, the appellant had to load
the said cargo within nine days on or before 6.08.2005
s and in case it failed to get the export order , it had to load
maize to Colombo from Kakinada Port. The vessel arrived
at the Port. However, the appellant could not get the ex-
port order from the State. It loaded 1100 MT of cargo as
against 13,500 MT of the agreed cargo and agreed to pay
C compensation of US $ 90,000 to the respondent for the
loss suffered by it. Respondent was not satisfied with the
quantum of demurrage offered by the appellant and dis-
pute arose between the parties. Thereafter, the appellant
requested the respondent to unload the cargo from the
vessel but the same was not done. Respondent filed ap-
0
plication for discharge of 1, 100 MT of cargo before the
High Court of Delhi. The application was allowed. Appel-
lant then filed appeal and subsequently withdrew the
matter. Meanwhile, the appellant filed suit claiming dam-
ages as by that time the cargo unloaded from the ship
E had become unworthy of consumption. It also filed appli-
cation for interim injunction directing the Port Officer,
Kakinada Port, to detain the vessel at Kakinada harbour
till the disposal of the suit. The application was dismissed.
Appellant filed an appeal before High Court of Andhra
F Pradesh which was also dismissed. The respondents
then filed application u/s. 45 of the Arbitration and Con-
ciliation Act, 1996 to refer the dispute between the parties
to arbitration in London under the provisions of the En-
glish Arbitration Act, 1996 and stay all further proceed-
G ings in the suit pending arbitration. Trial court allowed the
application. High Court also upheld the order holding that
the Gharter Party Agreement was in existence and the
appellant could not deny the same. Hence the present
appeal.
H
J MIS. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 927
SHIPPING LIMITED

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, there existed a charter
party agreement between the parties to the suitwhich can
be identified from the correspondence between the par-
ties to that effect as also from the fixture note and the bill
of lading signed by the parties. As-per the provisions <?f s. B
45 of the Act, the High Court as well as the trial court were
fully justified in allowing the application preferred by the
respondent. [Paras 23 and 25] [943, H; 944,A; 944,F]
1.2 All the facts regarding the existence of the Char- c
ter.Party Agreement have been extensively deliberated in
the courts below and the said courts have unilaterally
accepted that there exists a Charter Party Agreement be-
tween the parties. No grounds have been raised in this
appeal by the appellant satisfying this Court also that from
D
the recprds, it could be said that there was no existence
of any Charter Party Agreement between the parties.
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concur-
rent orders of the courts below. [Para 9] [936,C-D]
· 1.3 By the Charter Party Agreement dated 18th of July, E
2005 the appellant agreed to load and the respondent
-i' agreed to carry 13,500 tons of the cargo from Kakinada
to the port of Cotonou. The said Charter Party Agreement
provided for arbitration in Box 25 and Clause 19 and that
.... .. the disputes pertaining to the same were to be referred to F
arbitration in London under the English Arbitration Act. It
is clear from the clause 19 that the venue of the arbitra-
tion chosen by both the parties is London in the United
Kingdom and the Jaw chosen by both the parties is the
English Law. In view of the mandatory provision of s. 45
G
of the Act, the Court is duty bound to stay all further pro-
ceedings in the suit and refer the matter to Arbitration as
per Clause 19 of the Charter Party Agreement. [Paras 10
and 13] [936, E-F; 938, G-H; 939,A]
H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A 1.4 It is clear from the provision made u/s. 7 of the Act,
that the existence of an arbitration agreement can be inferred
from a document signed by the parties, or an exchange of
letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunica-
ti on, which provide a record of the agreement. It is clear that
B a Charter Party Agreement need not be in writing signed by
both parties and this could as well be made out from the
acts of the parties to the agreement by way of their exchange
of letters and information through fax, e-mails etc. It cannot
be said that u/s. 7 of the Act the letter/faxes or mails or any
c other communications will have to contain the arbitration
clause in the absence of any agreement. The expressions
of s. 7 do not specify any requirement to this effect. [Paras
11 and 14] [937,F-G; 939,D, 938,A]
1.5 The appellant had vehemently contended that
D there was no Charter Party Agreement between them.
Even if it is assumed that there was no such agreement
between the parties, it is the responsibility of the appel-
lant to provide a reasoning as to how the vessel was re-
sponsible for carrying the said cargo arrived at the port
E of Kakinada without any agreement present between the
appellant and the respondent. The appellant also needs
to explain as to what was the agreement entered into upon
it for which it loaded the ship with 1100 MT of the cargo
instead of the promised 13500 MT. Moreover the appel-
F lant had agreed to pay compensation to the tune of US $
90,000 to the respondent on its own initiative due to the
. ~

fact that it was unable to load the requisite amount of
cargo of 13,500MT on board. The appellant needs to ex-
plain as to what were the circumstances under which it
wanted to pay such compensation to the respondent.
G
According to the explanations provided by the appellant,
it had not committed any breach. Therefore, the question
to be asked is why did the appellant want to pay such a '
huge sum of compensation for no fault of it, if there was
no Charter Party Agreement to that effect between the par-
H
M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 929
SHIPPING LIMITED

ties. If the loading of the cargo by the appellant which com- A
menced on 6th· of August, 2005 is not under any Charter
Party Agreement as contended by the appellant, but under
a different agreement, then the appellant has to show the
terms of the other agreement under which the loading of
the cargo was done by the appellant, since the stock loaded B
is not of a small quantity but worth one crore and odd in
terms of Indian r.upees. For the loading and unloading of
cargo as well as to carry it from one port to another, an
agreement is certainly required and if the said agreement
is not a Charter Party Agreement, then there has to be some c
other agreement to that effect. The appellant is supposed
to provide the details of. that agreement in the alternative,
which it had not done. [Para 14] [939,E-H; 940,A-D]
1.6 Appellant had not denied the fact that it had
signed the first page of the Charter Party Agreement. The D
claim that such a signature would not amount to a valid
arbitration agree.ment cannot be entertained. [Paras 10
and 11] [937,G; 936,G]
1.7 As regards the submission of the appellant that
loading of the sorghum was done pursuant to a fixture E
note, a careful perusal of the fixture note reveals that the
place of arbitration has been mentioned as London. More-
over, with regard to Clause 14-19, it has been mentioned
... ~
in the said fixture note that it is re-established as per the
Charter Party. Thus, it is clear that even the fixture note F
as pointed out by the appellant contains a provision as to
the place of arbitration and a reference has been made to
the charter party agreement. Therefore, the appellant can-
not escape its liability from complying with the provisions
of the Charter Party Agreement. [Paras 17 and 21] [943,C- G
0941, C]
We/ex A.G. vs. Rosa Maritime Ltd. (The "Elipson Rosa
Case'/ 2002 EWHC 762 (Comm) - referred to.
1.8 From the judgment arid order passed by Delhi H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A High Court, it is pellucid that the appellant had not chal-
lenged the validity of the arbitration agreement between
the parties. [Para 18] [941,G]
1.9 It cannot be said that u/s. 8 of the Act it is neces-
sary for the party making an application to refer the mat-
B ter to arbitrati9n, to provide the original arbitration agree-
ment or a duly certified copy of the same. The instant ap-
peal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order of the trial
court allowing the application filed by the respondent u/
C s. 45 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act deals with matters
relating to international commercial arbitrations and s. 8 of
the same does not have any relevance in the instant ap-
peal. Section 45 of the Act does not require the respon-
dent to file the original of the Charter Party Agreement. In
D any event, the appellant had not questioned the authentic-
ity of the Charter Party Agreement filed by the respondent
and had in fact admitted the signature appearing on the
first page of the same to have been made on its behalf. The
courts below had thoroughly examined the said Charter
E Party Agreement and had passed their orders after con-
sidering the clauses thereof. [Para 19] [941,H; 942,A-D]
1.10 As per the provisions of the s. 45 of the Act, it is
clear that at the request of one of the parties or any per-
son claiming through or under him the court shall refer
F the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the said agree-
ment is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being
performed. In the instant case, there appears to be no such
thing to say that the so called agreement entered into by
the~ parties is in any way to be termed as null and void or
G inoperative or incapable of being performed. The claims
raised by the appellant before this Court about the non-
existence of the charter party agreement can also be
raised by the same before the arbitral tribunal at London.
Under the English Arbitration Act 1996, as per ss. 30 and
H 31 of the said Act, the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own
· . M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 931
SHIPPING LIMITED

• . jurisdiction and.also can decide on the existence of a valid A
arbitration agreement. This is similar to the provisions u/
s. 16 of the Act, whereby the arbitral tribunal can decide
on its jurisdiction _as also on the existence or validity of
'the arbitration agreement. [Para 24] [944,A-D]
Case Law Reference B

2002 EWHC 762 (Comm) Referred to Para 22

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5796
of 2008
c
From the Judgment/Order dated 15/6/2007 of the High
Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P.
No. 6618 of 2006 ·

L.N. Rao, Jayanth Muth Raj and C.K. Sasi for the Appel-
lant. D

Dushyant Dave, Ravindra Srivastava, Amitava Mujumdar,
Siddharth Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija, Kunal Verma, R.
Srivastava, Supriya Jain, Anup Jain, K. Krishna Kumar and .
Jemtiben Ao for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
1A. This is an appeal by special leave against the judg-
ment and order dated 151h of June, 2007 of the High Court of F
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No. 6618 of 2006,
whereby the High Court had affirmed the order dated 301h No-
vember, 2006 of the Ill Additional District Judge, Kakinada in IA
No. 3861 of 2005 arising out of OS No. 34 of 2005 allowing an
application filed by the respondent under Section 45 of the Ar- G
bitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, i§the Act(').
2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as
emerging from the case made out by the appellant, may be sum-
marized as follows:
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 13 S.C.R.

A 3. The appellant is a company dealing in the business of
manufacturing and exporting food products and cereals/grains
etc. The appellant was to export sorghum (hereinafter referred
to as the j§cargoj'') to the State of Niger. The appellant thereaf-
ter negotiated with the head of the State of Niger through a lady
B Principal Officer for an export order. In that process, the appel- ,.
lant herein obtained an irrevocable letter of credit from the State
Bank of India, Overseas Branch, New Delhi, on 12th of July, 2005.
On 26th of July, 2005, the appellant addressed an e-mail to the
respondent through its broker Brisk Marine Services. As per
c the Gontents of the mail the appellant promised to load 13,500 ,
MT of the cargo at Kakinada Port for transportation to Cotonou.
The respondent herein, issued a bill of lading. As per the terms
and conditions of the Charter Party Agreement, the appellant
had to load the said cargo within nine days on or before 5th of
August, 2005. The vessel M.V. Kapitan Nazarev arrived at
0
Kakinada Port on 24th of July, 2005. The surveyor of the appel-
lant inspected the vessel on 25th of July, 2005. For some rea-
son or the other, the proposal of the appellant did not fortify. On
gth of August, 2005, the appellant informed the respondent that
he could not get the export order from the State of Niger due to
E some unreasonable conditions imposed by it. As per the Char-
ter Party Agreement, existence of which was alleged by the re-
spol']<;ient and denied by the appellant, the appellant had to load
maize to Colombo from. Kakinada Port, in case he failed to get

F
the export order from Niger. On 19th of August, 2005, the appel-
lant addressed an e-mail to the respondent stating that he was
ready to compensate the respondent for the loss suffered by it.
On 24th of August, 2005, the respondent addressed an email
. -
back to the appellant stating that it was not satisfied with the
demurrage amount offered to be paid by the appellant. A pe-
G rusal of the facts clearly reveal that the dispute started between
the appellant and the respondent with regard to the quantum of
demurrage. The appellant herein loaded 1100 MT of the cargo
in the vessel from 6th of August, 2005 to gth of August, 2005 as
against 13,500 MT of the agreed cargo. On 5th of September,
H 2005, the appellant sent an email to the respondent requesting
M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 933
,)
SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
~
it to unload the cargo from the vessel. But the cargo was not A
unloaded from the vessel due to the ongoing disputes between
the parties. The respondent initiated proceedings in the High
Court of Delhi seeking interim orders in the matter of discharge
of 1, 100 MT of the cargo under Section 9 of the Act. The said
__,
' . application came to be allowed by the High Court on 28th of
September, 2005. The appellant carried the matter in appeal
B

1 and subsequently withdrew the same on 22nd of January, 2007.
In the meantime the appellant had also filed a suit claiming dam-
1_...I ages as by the time the cargo unloaded from the ship had be-
.., come unworthy of consumption. The appellant also filed an ap- c
,j plication for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
..J
Civil Procedure Code, seeking interim injunction directing the
\
Port Officer, Kakinada Port, to detain the vessel of M.V. Kapitan
1 Nazarev at Kakinada harbour till the disposal of the suit. The
• application came to be dismissed by the Ill Additional District
D
J ~
Judge, Kakinada, by an order dated 11th of November, 2005.
The appellant thereafter unsuccessfully challenged the said or-
derby filing an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
1 The respondents then entered into appearance in O.S. No. 44
J of 2005 and moved an application under Section 45 of the Act
E
1 to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration in London
under the provisiohs ofthe English Arbitration Act, 1996 and
stay all further proceedings in the suit pending arbitration. The
\ Learned Ill Additi6nal District Judge, Kakinada, allowed the ap-
plication by an order dated 30th of November, 2006. Feeling
,.... ,-.t aggrieved, the appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition before F
j t.he High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which was dis-
missed on a finding that there was a Charter Party Agreement
in existence and the appellant could not deny the existence of
the same .
.., G
' 4. It is this order of the High Court, which was under cha!-
lenge by way of a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of
leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the par-
'"> ties.
•
~ 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and H
.
'1
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13S.C.R.

A after examining the impugned judgment of the High Court and
also the order of the trial court, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the concurrent orders of the High Court as well as
of the trial court in the exercise of our discretionary power under
Article 136 of the Constitution.
B 6. The learned counsel appeari[lg on behalf of the appel-
lant has contended that the trial court has not given any finding
with regard to the existence of the Arbitration Agreement and
without there being any positive finding with regard to the same,
.. invocation of the provisions of Section 45 of the Act was unjus-
C tified. He has further contended that even if there is any Charter
Party Agreement, it does not cover the shipment of 1, 100 MT of
bagged cargo and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court
as well as of the High Court was not proper and legal and there-
fore, the same is liable to be set aside. He further contended
D that the respondent had not placed any record, prima facie, as
to the existence of the arbitration clause and therefore, the de-
cision of the High Court to allow the application fiied by the re-
spondent under Section 45 of the Act cannot be sustained.
7. It was next contended that the same issue was raised
E before the Delhi High Court and also before the Andhra Pradesh
High Court. From the record, it appears that Delhi High Court
after !~oing through the records came to the conclusion that there
was a Charter Party Agreement existing between the parties
and it contained a clause with regard to the arbjtration and, there-
F fore, the appellant could not be permitted to contend that there
was no arbitration clause in the Charter Party Agreement. For
this purpose, it is pertinent to refer to the findings of the Delhi
High Court in this respect:
"In the written reply field by the respondent, respondent
G
has admitt~d loading of 1, 100 MT of Sorghum on board
the petitioner's vessel. According to the respondent, they
have been persistently requesting the petitioner to allow
them to discharge the goods and even offered a sum of
US$ 90,000 but the petitioner, in order to blackmail the
H
MIS. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 935
SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J]
)

respondent, came out with an unfounded, unrealistic, A
and illegal claim of over4.56 lac of US $ as a pre-
condition for the release of the goods to which the
respondent did not agree. Not only that, the petitioner
has sent emails to all shipping lines warning them not to
. deal with the respondent without first contracting the B
.J.
petitioner This, according to the respondent, amounts
to defamation for which the respondent claims damages
to the tune of US$ 3,00,000. As regards the agreement
namely Charter Par, respondent's versions is that they
have signed only fixture note and not any charter party c
agreement. Respondent has further taken a preliminary
objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain this petition.
When a corporation/company has its subordinate office
..,
at the place where cause of action arose, only local courts D
-+ will have jurisdiction to try the suit notwithstanding the
fact that the corporation/company has its registered office
somewhere else, where no part of cause of action arose.
In the present case, petitioner's contention that Delhi
Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit is based on sub- E
clause 'c' and not sub-clause 'a' of section 20 of CPC.
According to the petitioner Charter Party was signed at
Delhi. Respondent did not deny their signatures on the
first page of Charter Party, whicr .:hows that the agreement
was signed at New Delhi and place of arbitration as F
...... London. Thus, a part of cause of action arose in Delhi
where the principal office of the respondent is also
situated. In this case there is no agreement between the
parties excluding the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
Therefore, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the
G
present petition."
8. TheAndhra Pradesh High Court had correctly noted that
it was explicit from the order passed by the Delhi High Court
}
that the contention advanced by the appellant herein had been
, negatived. Against the said order the appellant had preferred H
1
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A an appeal but subsequently withdrew the same. Therefore, the
appellant cannot be permitted to contend that there is no arbi-
tration clause in the Charter Party Agreement. Once there is an
arbitration clause in the agreement, the matter is required to be
referred to an Arbitrator. The trial court considered the materi-
8 als brought on record and allowed the application filed by the
respondent under Section 45 of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh
High Court finding no infirmity in the order of the trial court had
affirmed the same.
9. Taking all the matters into consideration and after ex-
C aminin!~ all the materials on record, it is necessary to mention
that all the facts regarding the existence of the Charter Party
Agreement have been extensively deliberated in the courts be-
low and the said courts have unilaterally accepted that there
exists a Charter Party Agreement between the parties. No
D grounds have been raised in this appeal by the appellant satis-
fying us also that from the records, it could be said that there
was no existence of any Charter Party Agreement between the
parties. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with
the concurrent orders of the courts below.
E 10. In our view, we should give reasons for dismissing this
appeal. We have already noted that by the Charter Party Agree-
ment dated 181h of July, 2005 the appellant agreed to load and
the respondent agreed to carry 13,500 tons of the cargo from
Kakinada to the port of Cotonou. We have also observed that
F the said Charter Party Agreement provided for arbitration in Box
25 and Clause 19 and that the disputes pertaining to the same
were to be referred to arbitration in London under the English
Arbitration Act. The appellant herein has not refuted the signa-
ture on the front page of the Charter Party Agreement. We can-
G not entertain his claim that such a signature would not amount
to a valid arbitration agreement. For this purpose, it would be
relevant to quote Section 7 of the Act:
"Arbitration Agreement:

H 1) In this part "Arbitration Agreement" means an
MIS. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 937
} SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all A
or certain disputes which have arisen or which may
arise between them in respect of a defined legal
relationship, whether contractual or not

2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an
arbitration clause in a contract or in the form of a B
separate agreement.

3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.

4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is
contained in:- c
a) A document signed by the parties;

b) An exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or
other means of telecommunication which
provide a .record of the agreement; or D
....
c) An exchange of statements of claim and
·defence in which the existence of the
agreement is alleged by one party and not
denied by the other.
E
5) The reference in a contract to a document
containing an arbitration clause constitutes an
arbitration agreement if the contract is in writing and
the reference is such as to make that arbitration
.
..... 4
clause part of the contract." F
11. Therefore, it is clear from the provisions made under -
Section 7 of the Act that the existence of an arbitration agree-
ment can be inferred from a document signed by the parties, or
an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of te.le-
communication, which provide a record of the agreement. In G
. the present case, the appellant had not denied the fact that it
had signed the first page of the Charter Party Agreement. More-
)- over, the subsequent correspondences between the parties also
lead us to conclude that there was indeed a Charter Party Agree-
ment, which existed between the parties. We cannot accept the H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.
.i
A contention of the appellant that under Section 7 of the Act the
letter/faxes or mails or any other communications will have to
contain the arbitration clause in the absence of any agreement.
The expressions of Section 7 do not specify any requirement to
this effect.
B 12. Clause 19 (a) read with Box 25 of the Charter Party
Agreement between the appellant and the respondent states
as follows:

"Clause 19- LAW AND ARBITRATION
c (a) This charter party shall be governed and construed
in accordance with the English Law and any dispute
arising out of this charter party shall be referred to
arbitration in London in accordance with the
Arbitration Acts 1950 and 1979 or any statutory
D modification or re-enactment there of for the time
being in force. Uniess the parties agree upon a
sole arbitrator, one arbitrator shall be appointed by
each party and the arbitrators so appointed shall
appoint a third arbitrator, the decision of the three-
E man tribunal thus constituted or any two of them,
shall be final. On the receipt of one party of the
nomination in writing of the ofher's arbitrator, that
party shall appoint their arbitrator within fouiteen
days. Failing which the decision of the single
F arbitrator appointed shall be final. For disputes
where the total amount claimed by either party does ·_
not exceed the amount stated in Box 25; the
arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with
the small claims procedure of the London Maritime
Arbitrators Association."
G
13. It is clear from the above-mentioned clause that the
venue of the arbitration chosen by both the parties is London in
the United Kingdom and the law chosen by both the parties is ~
the English Law. In view of the mandatory provision of Section
H 45 of the Act, the Court is duty bound to stay all further proceed-
\
M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED .v. KOLA 939
i
SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

ings in the suit and refer the matter to Arbitration as per Clause A
19 of the Charter Party Agreement.
14. The appellant contended that the respondent did not
file the original Charter Party Agreement in any of the proceed-
ings before any of the lower courts. We would want to reiterate
B
that. As far as the provision of Section 7 of the Act is concerned,
an arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration
clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement and
furthermore an arbitration is considered to be in writing if it is
contained in a document si,gned by the parties or in an exchange
of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of telecommunica- c
tion which provide a record of the agreement or an exchange of
statement of claim and defence in which the existence of an
agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by the other.
So from the provisions of Section 7, it is clear that a Charter
' -1 Party Agreement need not be in writing signed by both parties D
and this could as well be made out from the acts of the parties
to the agreement by way of their exchange of letters and infor-
mation through fax, e-mails etc. It is clear from the records that
in this case the agreement between the appellant and the re-
spondent was entered into through Brisk Marine Services, and E
a letter addressed to Kola Freight for arranging a vessel for
carrying the cargo of 13,500 MT from Kakinada Port to Cotonou
was delivered. The appellant had vehemently contended be-
fore us that there was no Charter Party Agreement between
.i,.
~ them. Even if it is assumed that there was no such agreement F
between the parties, it is the responsibility of the appellant to
provide a reasoning as to how did the vessel was responsible
for carrying the said cargo arrived at the port of Kakinada with-
out any agreement present between the appellant and the re-
spondent. The appellant also needs to explain as to what was
G
the agreement entered into upon it for which it loaded the ship
with 1100 MT of the cargo instead of the promised 13500 MT.
Moreover the appellant had agreed to pay compensation to the
tune of US$ 90,000 to the respondent on its own initiative due
to the fact that it was unable to load the requisite amount of
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A cargo of 13,500MT on board. The appellant needs to explain
as to what were the circumstances under which it wanted to pay
such compensation to the respondent. According to the expla-
nations provided by the appellant, it had not committed any
breach. Therefore, the question to be asked is why did the ap-
8 pellant want to pay such a huge sum of compensation for no
fault of it, if there was no Charter Party Agreement to that effect
between the parties. If the loading of the cargo by the appellant
which commenced on 6th of August, 2005 is not under any Charter
Party Agreement as contended by the appellant, but under a
c different agreement, then the appellant has to show the terms
of the other agreement under which the loading of the cargo
was done by the appellant, since the stock loaded is not of a
small quantity but worth one crore and odd in terms of Indian
rupees. For the loading and unloading of cargo as well as to
carry it from one port to another, an agreement is certainly re-
0
quired and if the said agreement is not a Charter Party Agree-
ment, then there has to be some other agreement to that effect.
The appellant is supposed to provide the details of that agree-
ment in the alternative, which it had not done. We are afraid that
the appellant has not provided any satisfactory explanations to
E the above-mentioned questions.

15. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
lant next contended that tne loading of sorghum in the vessel

F
was done under a bill of lading and except that there was no
other contract between the parties. He also contended that the \.- -
bill of lading is nothing but a receipt issued as to what was the
cargo that was loaded in the vessel and it did not contain any
terms of the agreement.
16. It is clear from the documents produced before us that
G as on the date of loading of the cargo into the vessel on 5th of
August, 2005 there was no final cancellation of the orders from
the Government of the State of Niger and that the appellant was
loading the said cargo with the hope that the Government of
Niger would accept the proposal. The appellant during that time
H was not in a position to load the total amount of the cargo as
) M/S. SHAKTI BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA B41
SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

produced to the tune of 13,500 MT as the deal with the Govern- A
ment of Niger was not yet finalized. But then in such a situation,
if the so called Charter Party Agreement, relied upon by the
respondent, is absent, then there has to be some other agree-
~ ment to that effect under which, the appellant herein agreed to
load the vessel with a cargo of 1, 100 MT of sorghum. But such B
an agreement has not come'to our notice.

17. The appellant contended that the loading of the sor-
ghum was done pursuant to a fixture note. A careful perusal of
the fixture note reveals that the place of arbitration has been
mentioned as London. Moreover, with regard to Clause 14-19, c
it has been mentioned inthe said fixture note that it is re-estab-
lished as per the Charter Party. Thus it is clear to us that even
the fixture note as pointed out to us by the appellant contains a
provision as to the place of arbitration and a reference has been
--1 made to the charter party agreement. D
i
" 18. We.would further wish to point out that while contend-
ing against the filing of an application under Section 9 of the Act
for interim measures by the respondent before the Delhi High
Court in OMP No. 331 of 2005, the appellant had never raised
any objection as to the existence of the Charter Party Agree- E
ment between the parties. On the contrary, the appellant con-
tended before the Delhi High Court saying that Section 9 of the
Act would not apply if the place of arbitration was not in India.
c> -4 Moreover, the appellant herein had preferred an appeal against
the said order of the Delhi High Court dated 28th of September, F
"1
.
., 2005 and ultimatelywithdrewthe appeal reserving its rights only
so far as to challenge the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi.
From the judgment and order dated 28th of September, 2005
and the order dated 22"ct of January, 2007, it is pellucid that the
appellant had not challenged the validity of the arbitration agre~- G
ment between the parties.
19. The appellant has also contended that under Section
8 of the Act it is necessary for the party making an application
to refer the matter t9 arbitration, to provide the original arbitra-
H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,(
[2008] 13 S.C.R.

A tion agreement or a duly certified copy of the same. But this
contention has no legs to stand upon in the context of the present
appeal. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned
judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order
of the trial court allowing the application filed by the respondent
B herein under Section 45 of the Act. We may note that Section
45 of the Act deals with matters relating to international com-
mercial arbitrations and Section 8 of the same does not have
any relevance in the present appeal. Section 45 of the Act does
not require the respondent to file the original of the Charter Party
c Agreement. In any event, the appellant had not questioned the
authenticity of the Charter Party Agreement filed by the respon-
dent and had in fact admitted the signature appearing on the
first pa~1e of the same to have been made on its behalf. The
Courts below had thoroughly examined the said Charter Party
Agreement and had passed their orders after considering the t--
D
clauses thereof.
20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
lant had drawn our attention to the fact that the appellant had
sent an email to the respondent on 26th of July, 2005 stating that
E it had not signed any Charter Party. We have gone through the
said email. It has been clearly stated in the email that the appel-
!ant had received the Charter Party with regard to Cotonou but
had not received anything for Colombo. Therefore he had not
signed the same. The said portion of the email is quoted herein \.- ~

F for convenience:
"I am in receipt of GP and Fixture Note for Cotonou but
nothing for Colombo therefore, not signed so far."
To this effect it can be said that the appellant had not signed
the said charter party. But if we proceed towards the end of the
G
said email sent by the appellant, we may say that there is a
clear disparity as to the contention of the appellant that there 4
was no agreement between the parties regarding the loading
of the cargo. We feel it necessary to refer to the relevant portion
of the email pointing out to this disparity:
H
).
M/S. SHAKT! BHOG FOODS LIMITED v. KOLA 943
SHIPPING LIMITED [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

"Above for your info. And action pis. Am trying my best A
to engage your vessel just to honour the negotiations.
Let's hope for best."
It is clear from a perusal of the above-mentioned state-
ment that there was on going negotiations between the parties
regarding the loading of the cargo and pursuant to such nego- B
tiations, 1100 MT of the cargo had been loaded. It is difficult to
believe that such cargo was loaded without any agreement to
the parties to that effect.
21. Further the said email clearly shows that the appellant c
had asked for a fixture note for the delivery of the cargo to Co-
lornbo. The appellant had subsequently accepted that he had
sent the said cargo to Colombo pursuant to a fixture note. As
has already been observed before, the said fixture note reveals
that the place of arbitration has been mentioned as London.
D
Moreover, with regard to Clause 14-19 it has been mentioned
in the s.aid fixture note that it is re-established as per the Char-
ter Party. Therefore the appellant cannot escape its liability from
complying with the provisions of the CharterParty Agreement.
22. Fixtures are frequently recorded in a telex or fax reca- i=
pitulating the terms finally agreed (a i§recapj"'). Thus a recap
telex or fax may constitute the i§charter Party referred to in an-
other contract. In the case of We/ex AG. vs. Rosa Maritim~
--i Ltd. (The "Elipson Rosa Case') [2002] EWHC 762 (Comm}, it
was decided by the Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) F
that a voyage charter party of the Elipson Rosa Wcis concluded
on the basis of a recap telex which incorporated by reference a
standard form charter. Before any formal charter was signed,
bills of lading were issued referring tothe i§Charter Party(·,
without identifying it by date. It was held that the charter party
G
referred to was the contract contained in or evidenced by the
recap telex.
23. In the present case therefore, we conclude that there
existed a charter party between the parties to the suit which can
be identified from the correspondence between the parties to H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R.

A that effect as also from the fixture note and the bill of lading
signed by the parties.
24. As per the provisions of the Section 45 of the Act, it is
clear that at the request of one of the parties or any person claim-
ing through or under him the court shall refer the parties to arbi-
B tration unless it finds that the said agreement is null and void,
inoperative or incapable of being performed. In the present case,
there appears to be no such thing to say that the so called agree-
ment entered into by the parties is in any way to be termed as
null and void or inoperative or incapable of being performed. It
C is further observed by us that the claims raised by the appellant
before us about the non-existence of the charter party agree-
ment can also be raised by the same before the arbitral tribunal
at London. Under the English Arbitration Act 1996, as per Sec-
tions 30 and 31 of the said Act, the arbitral tribunal may rule on
D its own jurisdiction and also can decide on the existence of a
valid arbitration agreement. This is similar to the provisions
under Section 16 of the Act, whereby the arbitral tribunal can
decide on its jurisdiction as also on the existence or validity of
the arbitration agreement.
E 25. In the light of the discussions above-mentioned, we
are convinced that there is a charter party agreement existing
between the parties and, that as per the provisions of Section
45 of the Act, the High Court as well as the trial court were fully
justified in allowing the application preferred by the respondent
F and accordingly, impugned order must be affirmed.
26. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the
High Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and
there is no infirmity in the impugned order in the same for which
G we can interfere. The appeal is therefore dismissed. There will
be n() order as to costs.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.