ivil Appeal No 3838 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1210
1987 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 244 of 1983
CS Vaidyanathan SR Bhat and KV Mohan for the Appellant
MS Ganesh for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
Special leave granted
This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated October 12 1987 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay
The appellant had chartered their vessel KRISTEL  to the respondent for carrying oil from Arabian Gulf to India under a charter party dated 30th November 1979
Clause 40a of the charter party provided that the charter shall be construed and the relations between the parties shall be determined in accordance with the English Law
Clause 40b of the charter party provided that any dispute arising under the charter party shall be decided by the English Courts but that either party may elect in writing to have the dispute referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator in London in accordance with the English Arbi tration Act 1950
 Disputes and differences arose between the parties and they appointed one Mr Robert William Reed of the Baltic Exchange and of 28 Reddons Road Beckenham Kent BR 3 ILZ to be the sole arbitrator
The parties appeared before the arbitrator represented by their respective Solicitors and counsel
The arbitrator made his award on 28th July 1982 which contained inter alia as follows I AWARD AND ADJUDGE that the Charterers do 73 forthwith pay the Owners the sum of US  29182200 United States Dollars two hundred and ninetyone thousand eight hundred and twenty two only together with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum as from 20th June 1980 to the date of this my Final Award in full and final settlement of the matters at issue in the Reference
I FURTHER AWARD AND ADJUDGE that the Charter ers do bear and pay their own and the Owners  costs of the Reference the latter to be taxed in the event of disagreement and that the Charterers do bear and pay the cost of this my Final Award which I hereby tax and settle at E4684 including my disbursements
Provided always that if in the first instance the Owners shall have paid the said cost of this my Award then they shall be entitled to an immediate refund from the Charterers of the sum so paid As mentioned hereinbefore the arbitrator awarded the cost of reference to be taxed in the event of disagreement
The respondent paid only the principal sum and failed and neglected to pay any interest on it and the appellant s cost of reference to arbitration and the cost of the award
Pursuant to section 20 of the English Arbitration Act 1950 a sum directed to be paid by the award shall carry interest as from the date of the award at the same rate as the judg ment date
It appears that from 8th June 1982 the interest rate on judgment debt in England was 14 per annum
The award is enforceable under the Foreign Awards Recognition  Enforcement Act 1961 hereinafter called the Act 
The appellant filed an application under the Act in the High Court of Bombay inter alia contending for the judgment be pronounced and a decree to be passed according to the award in favour of the appellant
The learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated 21st February 1983 decreed in favour of the appellant and di rected the respondent to pay interest and costs of the award so awarded by the arbitrator and also cost of the petition
The learned Judge however rejected the appellant s prayer for the cost of reference to arbitration and also rejected the applicant s prayer that in the alternative liberty should be reserved in respect of the said prayer
The said prayer was made orally but was refused by the learned Single Judge because as he observed that he saw no reason to re serve such liberty as the appellant had not taken any steps
74 Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 21st February 1983 the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court
During the pendency of the said appeal in the High Court the appellant s costs of reference to arbitration as awarded by the arbitrator were taxed because of the failure of the parties to agree and the taxed amount was Pound 1090145 by the Taxing Master of the Supreme Court of Judicature England
A taxation certificate dated 19th December 1984 was issued and the same was pro duced at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Divi sion Bench
Before the Division Bench cross objections had been filed on behalf of the respondent
By judgment dated 12th October 1987 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the respondent s cross objections and held that the only point related to the refusal of the learned Single Judge to grant liberty to the appellant to file a separate petition upon the costs of the reference to arbitration being quantified
The Division Bench held that at the time when the petition was filed there had been no agreement upon or reference for taxing of such costs and as such it appears that the application to have the costs taxed was made only after the appeal was filed
No order could be made directing the respondent to make payment to the appellant of the costs so taxed
The Division Bench held that if the appellant was entitled to file a fresh petition for such costs it might adopt such proceedings
Aggrieved thereby the appellant has come up before this Court
We are unable to uphold the views of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that no order could have been made by the Division Bench directing the respondent to make payment to the appellant s costs so taxed
Foreign awards as it manifests are executable in this country under the provisions of the Act
The Act in question was passed to give effect to the convention on the recognition and en forcement of foreign arbitrator s award
Section 6 of the Act is as follows Enforcement of Foreign Award 1 Where the Court is satisfied that the Foreign award is enforceable under this Act the court shall order the award to be filed and shall proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award
2 Upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except in so far as the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award Thus foreign award is enforceable in India
In such a case the 75 Court is obliged to direct that the award be filed and proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award
And upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow
This Court had occasion to examine the purpose and terms of the Act in Renusagar Power Co Ltd vs General Electric Co  Anr  This Court held referring to the objects that the Act seeks to achieve speedy settlement of disputes arising from international trade through arbitra tion
The Act was enacted to give effect to the Newyork International Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards to which India was a party
This Court noted that it is obvious that since the Act was calculated and designed to subserve the cause of facilitating interna tional trade and promotion thereof by providing for speedy settlement of disputes arising in such trade through arbi tration any expression or phrase occurring therein should receive consistent with its literal and grammatical sense a liberal construction
The judgment has been pronounced in terms of the afore said and a decree has followed
The award enjoins inter alia that the Chatterers do pay and bear their own costs and the owner s costs of reference the latter to be taxed in the event of disagreement
The judgment and decree which was pronounced in terms of the award did not direct any cost taxed or quantified of the reference to be paid
Indubita bly the costs of reference have been awarded
The award read properly means so far as costs of the reference are concerned that it was an award upon certain conditions ie the award stipulated that the costs of reference will be paid
The costs of such reference were however directed to be determined either by agreement between the parties and in case there was no agreement or disagreement to be taxed
The parties have not been able to agree
It appears from the averments made in the pleadings before the High Court there was no agreement as to the costs and the steps were taken after the appeal was filed before the Division Bench to have the costs taxed
But there is no evidence of any delay or laches on the part of the appellant as such which would disentitle the appellant to such costs
In that view of the matter this award can legitimately be considered as an award directing payment of costs upon the condition that these will be taxed on the failure of agreement or disagreement between the parties
The parties have failed to agree
The costs have been taxed and certified
There is no dispute as to the costs taxed or certified
We are of the opinion that law justice and equity in the facts and the circumstances of this case enjoin that the appellant should have such costs
The appellant has taken all possible steps that could be 76 taken in the situation contemplated by the award
The appel lant has written for agreement about the costs of reference
The respondent did not agree
The appellant took steps to have the costs taxed in London and the costs have been taxed
On behalf of the respondent several contentions were urged mainly on the ground that there is no scope for addi tion to the award and the award had to be executed as it was and the costs of reference had not been awarded
We are in agreement with Mr Ganesh that the award must be executed as it is and there is no scope for any addition to any award in executing a foreign award but the award to be executed must be properly construed and given effect to
If the award is ambiguous the court has jurisdiction to determine what it means
In this case the award is not ambiguous
It is clear that the costs of reference should be paid by the respond ent and that such costs should be paid as are determined by agreement between the parties and in case of failure of the agreement by the taxation such costs have been taxed and were placed before the Division Bench before it pronounced its judgment
Our attention was drawn to the decision in Re Becker Shillan  Co and Barry Bros  where it was held that where an umpire in making his award dealt with the costs of the award including the expenses of the hire of the room for the arbitration and shorthand notes but made no order as to the general costs of the parties to the reference the court would not presume that he has exercised his discretion to make no order as to costs or that he has left them to be borne by the parties who incurred them but will conclude that the question of costs has not been dealt with at all and therefore should remit the award to him for reconsideration
In our opinion the said decision has no application to the facts of this case
The instant appeal before us is not a case where the award has not dealt with the costs of reference rather it has specifically dealt with the same
It has categorically provided that cost of reference is to be paid by the respondent
The award has stated that such cost should be agreed between the parties and in case there was no agreement cost should be taxed
The award is clear and unambiguous and does not leave this question undecided
In the circumstances there is no scope of remission of this award or not enforcing what the arbitrator has awarded
Under the Act if an application is filed for decree in terms of the award the court in upholding the award ought to grant a decree in terms of the award and not substract any portion thereof
Since the award directed costs of appellant s reference to be paid as is mutually agreed upon or as taxed the Division Bench ought to have 77 passed an order for costs as taxed
We therefore direct that the award to be enforced and the costs as mentioned hereinbefore should also be payable by the respondent
The judgment and order of the High Court are modified to that extent
In the facts and the circum stances of the case we do not make any order as to costs of this appeal
RSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
In pursuance of an order of detention dated 1541988 passed by the District Magistrate Meerut the Petitioner a bachelor and having no property was arrested on 2nd October 1988 and detained under Section 32 of the National Securi ty Act
The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention enumerating therein the  acts committed by him on 2nd 3rd and 4th April 1988 and on 9488 and the provoca tive speeches made by him on the occasion of Shabberat a Muslim festival to the effect that Hindus had deliberately sent their cow on the road and the people are silent and about teaching them a lesson and administration s failure to fix a long speaker in the mosque These acts and the speeches made by the petitioner
were in the opinion of the detaining authority prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The representation made by the petitioner against the order of detention was rejected and the order of his detention was confirmed
Thereupon the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging his deten tion
The contentions of the petitioner are that i that there was inordinate delay in arresting the petitioner which indicated that the order of detention was not based on a bona fide and genuine belief that the action and conduct of the petitioner were such that the same were prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and the so called grounds were merely make belief and not genuine grounds ii that the grounds were not germane to the maintenance of public order and iii that the grounds were vague and unintelli gible
Allowing the Writ Petition this Court HELD Sub section 2 of section 3 of the Act autho rises the Central Government or the State Government if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any 57 manner prejudicial to the security of the state it is found necessary then the person can be detained
Hence there must be conduct relevant to the formation of the satisfaction having reasonable nexus with the actions of the petitioner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
Existence of material relevant to the formation of satisfac tion and having rational nexus to the formation of the satisfaction that because of certain conduct it is neces sary to make an order detaining such person are subject to judicial review
60H 61A B Delay unexplained and not justified by the circum stances and the exigencies of the situation is indicative of the fact that the authorities concerned were not and could not have been satisfied that preventive custody of the concerned person was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
Whether there has been unreasonable delay depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular situation
61C D Satisfaction of the authorities based on conduct must precede action for prevention
Satisfaction entails belief
Satisfaction and belief are subjective
Actions based on subjective satisfaction are objective indication of the existence of the subjective satisfaction
Action based on satisfaction should be with speed commensurate with the situation
61E F If in a situation the person concerned is not available or cannot be served then the mere fact that the action under section 7 of the Act has not been taken would not be a ground to say that the detention order was bad
Failure to take action even if there was no scope for action under section 7 of the Act would not be decisive or determinative of the question whether there was undue delay in serving the Order of detention
62A B The Petitioner has no property so no property could be attached and as the Government s case is that he was not available for arrest no order under sec
7 could have been possibly made
This however does not salvage the situa tion
The fact is that from 15th April 1988 to 12th May 1988 no attempt had been made to contact the Petitioner
No explanation has been given for this
There is also no explanation why from 29th September 1988 to 2nd October 1988 no attempt had been made
It is however stated that from May to September 1988 the entire police force was extremely busy in controlling the situation
Hence if the law and order was threatened and prejudiced it was not the conduct of the petitioner but because of the inadequacy or inability of the police force of Meerut City to control 58 the situation
Therefore the fact is that there was delay
The further fact is that the delay is unexplainedor not warranted by the facts situation
To shift the blame for public order situation and raise the bogey of the conduct of the petitioner would not be proof of genuine or real belief about the conduct of the petitioner but only raising a red herring
62B E The Court quashed the order of detention and directed the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith
65B Nizamuddin vs The State of West Bengal   Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji vs State of Tamil Nadu  Ant  at p 638 Indradeo Mahato vs State of West Bengal  State of Gujarat vs Adam Kasam Bhaya   Subhash Bhandari vs Distt
Magis trate Lucknow  Ors  and Kanu Biswas vs State of West Bengal   referred to