[Excerpted opinion. Portions of the opinion dealing with the question whether New York or Indian law should be applied to the merits of the suit, whether in the Indian courts or the arbitration proceeding, which questions the Court did not feel were properly before it, are omitted. In addition to Golodetz there was a second defendant in the suit who was not a party to the arbitration clause, and the portions of the opinion relating to that defendant are omitted. A similar case decided by the Supreme Court of India in which counsel did not make concessions regarding the handling of exchange problems in conducting an arbitration in New York, Golodetz v. Serajuddin & Co., A.I.R. 1963.]

S.C. 1044, December 12, 1962, is noted at 3 International Legal Materials 118 (1964.]