JUDGMENT This is an application by Messrs Industrial Armaments to SPA, the Defendant No. 3 in Suit No. 149 of 1983 State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Messrs Moninklijke Bunge B.V., inter alia, for stay of the said suit under section 3 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1981 and alternatively, for dismissal of the said suit as against the petitioner. 2. The facts shortly are that the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., (Hereinafter called the State Trading Corporation) imported certain quantity (Page 3 begins) of crude degummed Sovabin Oil (hereinafter called the said cargo) of which Moninklijke Bunge B.V. (hereinafter called Bunge) were the sellers. By and under a charter party dated the 27th November, 1981 made between the petitioner and Bunge the said cargo was shipped by the vessel S.S. "Serrnitus" belonging to the petitioner and was delivered at the ports of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. There is no disputes that the said charter was a voyage character. In the bill of lading which was issued in respect of the said cargo the State Trading Corporation was described as the consignee of the said cargo. It was recorded in the bill of lading that the same was to be used with the charter party. There was a short landing of the said cargo at the port of Calcutta and thereupon the said suit was filed by the Slate Trading Corporation, inter alia, against the petitioner as the carrier and Bunge as the seller, for damages for short landing. 3. A preliminary point was taken by Mr. Gopal Chakravarty, learned Counsel for the State Trading Corporation that the petitioner the carrier was an Italian Company and Italy (Page 4 begins) not being a territory which was notified by the Central Government in accordance with Clause (b) of section 2 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition & Enforcement) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Foreign Awards Act) the application was not maintainable. 4. Mr. Biswarup Gupta the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that originally Italy was not a territory so notified by the Central Government but subsequently it has been so notified by the Central Government. Inspite of diligent efforts he, however, could not lay his lands on the said Notification but in another case before this Court the said Notification was produced by Mr. Inspite of diligent efforts he, however, could not lay his lands on the said Notification but in another case before this Court the said Notification was produced by Mr. Bhatt, the learned Counsel appearing in that case which was recorded by this Court. Mr. Gupta referred to the (Page 5 begins) decision in (1) Micoperi S.P.A. v. Sansouci Private Ltd. reported in 1982(1) Cal LJ 511 at page 525 of the report it is recorded as under :- "Mr. Bhatt also produced copies of an official notification to show that Italy was one of the Countries notified for the purpose of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961." 5. Mr. Gupta is right in his submission that such a Notification exists and was produced before this Court in the case of Micoperi v. Sansouci (Supra) and the same was noted by this Court in the said decision. Thus the said preliminary objection of Mr. Chakravarty cannot be accepted. 6. To appreciate the various contentions raised in this application it is necessary to set out the (Page 6 begins) relevant portions of Clause 31 being Arbitration Clause in the charter party and Clause I of the conditions of carriage contained in the bill of lading. 7. The relevant portion of Clause 31 of the charter party reads as under :- "Any dispute arising from the making, performance, or termination of this charter party shall be settled in New York, owner and character each appointing an arbitrator who shall be merchant, broker or individual experienced in the shipping business; the two thus chosen, if they cannot agree, shall nominate a third arbitrator who shall be an admiralty lawyer......." 8. The relevant portion of Clause 1 of the conditions of carriage in the bill of lading reads as under :- "All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the charter party, dated as over-lead, are (Page 7 begins) herewith incorporated..." 9. The first contention of Mr. Gupta was that Bunge acted in the matter of the said charter party as the agent of the State Trading Corporation. The first contention of Mr. Gupta was that Bunge acted in the matter of the said charter party as the agent of the State Trading Corporation. The said charter party in respect of the vessel S.S. "Serrnitus" was entered into by Bunge at the request of the State Trading Corporation and the referred to paragraph 11 of the Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State Trading Corporation affirmed on 14th June, 1984 by Satya Paul Thukral wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioner as the owner of the vessel S.S. "Serrnitus" for carrying the said cargo from the said ports of leading to Indian Ports had knowledge and information that the said cargo was carried for the State Trading Corporation through negotiations and the same were made through Bunge (Page 8 begins) but not as the agent of the State Trading Corporation, Mr. Chakravarty, however, submitted that the charter party was between the petitioner and Bunge, the State Trading Corporation had nothing to do with it. Bunge being the sellter of the said cargo chartered the said ship for carrying the cargo to Indian ports and delivery at the ports of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. This being a voyage charier, the ship was carrying only the cargo belonging to the State Trading Corporation. Naturally, Bunge had chartered the said ship for carrying the cargo for and delivery thereof to the State Trading Corporation. But that would not constitute Bunge an agent of State Trading Corporation. The contention of Mr. Chakravarty is not without force. I do not find anything wherefrom I can come to the conclusion that Bunge was acting as (Page 9 begins) the agent of the State Trading Corporation in the matter of chartering the said vessel. 10. It was next urged by Mr. Gupta that the State Trading Corporation adopted the terms and condition of the charter-party as the contract of carriage and filed the said suit on that basis. By the endorsement in the bill of lading, that it was to be used with the Charter Party as well as by Clause 1 of the Conditions of the carriage contained in the Bill of Lading the terms and conditions at the charter party were incorporated in the Bill of Lading and the charter party read with the Bill of Lading would be the contract of carriage. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Gupta also urged that the parties named in the charter party may not be the only parties thereto but someone else might be shown as being the real Charterer. (Page 10 begins) In this case from the facts and circumstances and the relevant documents it is obvious that although the charter party, prima facie, showed that it was between the petitioner and Bunge but the real charter was the State Trading Corporation. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta cited a decision of the Appeal Court of England in (2) Frad Drughorn Limited v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlatric reported in 1919 AC 203. In this case the House of Lords round on basis of the charter party document, the person described as the charterer was acting as an agent of an undisclosed principal and allowed such principal to contest the proceedings. 12. There can be no exception to the principle laid down by House of Lords. But there are no such facts and circumstances on a consideration (Page 11 begins) whereof it could be said that Bunge was not the real charterer but the State Trading Corporation was. 13. In support of his contention that the terms and conditions of the charter party were incorporated in the Bill of Lading, Mr. Gupta cited certain passages from a treatise on Time Charters (1982 Edn.) Lloyd's publication at pages 316 and 317 which are as under :- "Bills of Lading frequently incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of a charter, including the Arbitration Clause. Where this occurs, there is an arbitration agreement between the carrier and the bill of lading holder............ The bill of lading will effectively incorporate an arbitration clause when it clearly refers to the charter and the bill of lading holder has either actual or constructive notice (Page 12 begins) of the incorporation........ If the bill of Lading is ambiguous, such as by making reference to a "Charter" which is not further identified, the court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. In the example just given, if the charter negotiations indicate that the parties intended that bills of lading incorporate the charter and the consignee has actual or constructive notice of his intent, the arbitration clause of the charter should be deemed to have been effectively incorporated." 14. Mr. In the example just given, if the charter negotiations indicate that the parties intended that bills of lading incorporate the charter and the consignee has actual or constructive notice of his intent, the arbitration clause of the charter should be deemed to have been effectively incorporated." 14. Mr. Gupta also referred to Bills of Lading Act, 1856 and submitted that in India the incidence of bill of lading was governed by the provisions of the said Act. Thus if the bill of lading contains an endorsement that the same shall be (Page 13 begins) used with charter party and also a clause that all terms and conditions and liberties and exceptions of the charter party are herewith incorporated, then in that case the terms and conditions of the charter party including the Arbitration Clause would be incorporated in the bill of lading and would form the contract between the carrier and the consignee who was the holder of the bill of lading. Thus the arbitration clause contained in the charter party became applicable to and the State Trading Corporation was bound by the same. Thus the State Trading Corporation could not institute the said suit without first having recourse to arbitration. 15. Mr. Gupta also urged that in an application under section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act, if the Court was satisfied that (Page 14 begins) there is an arbitration agreement, the Court has to stay the suit, if the conditions laid down in the said section are fulfilled, the Court has no discretion in the matter. In the instant case the terms and conditions of the charter party having been incorporated in the Bill of Lading the Arbitration Clause was also incorporated in the Bill of Lading and the State Trading Corporation as the consignee having accepted the Bill of Lading also accepted the said Arbitration Clause and became a party thereto. There is no dispute that the relationship between the parties was and had been commercial. No written statement has been filed by the petitioner as yet in the said suit nor any steps have been taken by it. Accordingly, the suit must be stayed. (Page 15 begins) Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in (3) M/s. V/D Tractoroexport, Moscow v. M/S Tarapore & Co. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1 . No written statement has been filed by the petitioner as yet in the said suit nor any steps have been taken by it. Accordingly, the suit must be stayed. (Page 15 begins) Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in (3) M/s. V/D Tractoroexport, Moscow v. M/S Tarapore & Co. reported in AIR 1971 SC 1 . This Decision however does not deal with the above contention of Mr. Gupta and is therefore no authority for the preposition advanced by Mr. Gupta. It was further contended by Mr. Gupta that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. The contract of sale was between the State Trading Corporation and Bunge. The petitioner being merely the carrier of the goods had neither any contract not any privity of contract with the State Trading Corporation. Thus the State Trading Corporation has no cause of action against the petitioner. The only basis of the claim as laid out in the plaint in the suit is that there (Page 16 begins) was short lading. No doubt the petitioner had agreed with Bunge to deliver the said cargo to the State Trading Corporation in full and in good condition but no such agreement is pleased in the plaint between the State Trading Corporation and the petitioner. Therefore the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs as against the petitioner. 16. Mr. Chakravarty on the other hand contended that even under section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act, the Court had a discretion in the matter of stay. It was urged that the Foreign Awards Act related to Foreign Awards and not to stages before such Award and in this context he referred to sections 4 to 11 of the Foreign Awards Act. It was submitted that under section 11 of the Foreign (Page 17 begins) Awards Act the rule making power of the High Court extended also with regard to awards. Mr. Chakravarty stressed on section 10 of the Foreign Awards Act and submitted that the repeal of the Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act, 1937 was only in relation of Foreign Awards to which the Foreign Awards Act applied. Mr. Chakravarty stressed on section 10 of the Foreign Awards Act and submitted that the repeal of the Arbitration (Protocol & Convention) Act, 1937 was only in relation of Foreign Awards to which the Foreign Awards Act applied. Thus at all stages before the award the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 was still applicable and section 3 thereof still held the field inasmuch as there the condition precedent was the submission. It was urged that the Foreign Awards Act dealt with Post-award matters while the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 dealt with and the provisions thereof were still applicable to pre-award matters. 17. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chakravarty. (Page 18 begins) section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act is clearly indicative of the absurdity of the contention of Mr. Chakravarty. The nomenclature of the Foreign Awards Act will not override the substantive provisions thereof. Section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act clearly deals with matters prior to the Award. Under section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act an application for stay of legal proceedings can be made by a party to the submission to which the conventions set forth in the schedule applies, if the other party to the submission commences a legal proceeding in respect of any matter agreed to be referred and on such application the Court shall make an order staying the proceedings. Thus it is clear that stay of legal proceedings is granted by the Court on an application in that behalf being filed (Page 19 begins) before it at the pre-award stage not after an award has been made. It is also absurd to suggest that an application for stay of legal proceedings has to be made after an award has been made, because in that event there would be no necessity of any legal proceeding with regard to the claim of dispute which has already been adjudicated upon by the arbitrator by his award. Mr. Chakravarty also urged that the State Trading Corporation as the consignee at the said Cargo was not a party to the charter party or to the Bill of Lading and thus not a party to the arbitration agreement or clause, contained in the charter party. The contract of sale between the State Trading Corporation and Bunge was a C & F contract. The contract of sale between the State Trading Corporation and Bunge was a C & F contract. Cost and Freight were thus fixed by the contract of sale and the State Trading (Page 20 begins) Corporation as the consignee was not liable to pay the freight as per charter party which was entered into by and between the petitioner and Bunge but was liable to pay only such freight as agreed upon by add between the State Trading Corporation and Bunge by and under contract of sale. 18. It was next urged by Mr. Chakravarty that there was no incorporation of the arbitration clause or agreement in the bill of lading by incorporation therein the terms and conditions of the charter party. In any event, by incorporation of the terms and conditions of the charter party in the bill of lading, the consignee did not because a party the charter party or to the arbitration clause. In support of his contention Mr. Chakravarty referred to Article 19 at paged 55-57 at Scrution on charter parties & Bills (Page 21 begins) of Lading (17th Edn.) which read as under :- "Thus the clause with freight and all other conditions as per charter will incorporate in the bill of lading all conditions in the charter to be performed by the consignee of the goods applicable to and consistent with the character of the bill of lading or relevant to his right to take delivery of the cargo but not inapplicable or insensible conditions or clauses of the charter which would alter express stipulations in the bill of lading or which are not conditions to be performed by the consignee." 19. Under such a clause holders of the bill of lading having been held liable for charter party demurrage at the port of loading or at the port of discharge, bound by a clause in the charter party giving a lien and for dead freight and entitled (Page 22 begins) to the benefit of a clause that the ship would discharge in the dock ordered by charterers. But lasser clause or Arbitration Clause or clauses as to the liability to the ship-owner, such as the exceptions in the charter or a clause in the charter party that the bills of lading shall be conclusive evidence of the amount of cargo shipped or a clause that the captain shall sign bills of lading as agent of the charterer and not the ship-owner, will not generally be incorporated in the bill of lading depends upon fine distinctions in the wording of the incorporating clause. And even wide words will not incorporate conditions not to be performed by the consignee. 20. Mr. Chakravarty cited a decision of the Supreme Court in (4) East and West Steamship Co. v. S.K. Ramalingam Chettier reported in (Page 23 begins) AIR 1960 SC 1058 , to stress that the carrier was liable to consignee for loss under the provisions of carriage of goods by Sea Act, 1925 for non-delivery of the cargo or any part thereof. 21. It was urged that in this case the bill of lading is a clean bill of lading, it was the shipper's liability to place the entire cargo on board the ship while it was the carrier's liability and responsibility to carry the entire cargo and to deliver the same at the ports of discharge. The carrier having failed to do so was liable for the short lading. Mr. Chakravarty also faintly sought to argue that the expression "shall" in section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act should be read or construed as "may" and the discretion of the Court in the matter of stay, is not taken away by the said section in support of his contention that the court has a discretion in the matter (Page 24 begins) of stay even in the case of an application under section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act, Mr. Chakravarty cited a decision of the Supreme Court in (5) Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import reported in AIR 1981 SC 2085 . 22. The above decision of the Supreme Court has no application to and is no authority for the preposition urged by Mr. Chakravarty. In that case the Supreme Court found as a fact that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. 22. The above decision of the Supreme Court has no application to and is no authority for the preposition urged by Mr. Chakravarty. In that case the Supreme Court found as a fact that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The Supreme Court, however, considered that there had been a contract then under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1949 the Court bad discretion in the matter of granting a stay. In my opinion, if the conditions laid down in section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act are fulfilled then on an application for stay of legal proceedings being made the Court has to grant a (Page 25 begins) stay, it has no discretion in the matter, the provision is mandatory. 23. Mr. Chakravarty lastly urged that the charter in the present case being a voyage charter, the principles with regard to time charier cited by Mr. Gupta would not apply. I do not think that such contention of Mr. Chakravarty has any substance. A charter party is primarily a contract of hearing of a ship be it by voyage charter or by a time charter or by a charter by demise. The incidence of such kind of charter might differ but whether an Arbitration Clause contained in the charter party agreement is incorporated in the bill of lading or not will not differ because of different kinds of charter. The principles governing the incorporation of the Arbitration Clause contained in the charter party into the bill of lading would remain the same whatever the nature of charter might be. 24. As observed earlier a charter party is a contract of hiring of the vessed. The incidence of such hiring may however differ according to the nature of the charter party whether the same was a Time Charter or a Voyage Charter or a charter by demise. After the cargo has been put on board the ship the bill of lading is issued by the Master or by any agent of the carrier in acknowledgement of the fact that the quantity of cargo mentioned in the bill of lading has been put on board the ship. The bill of lading also records the terms and conditions of afreightment as well as, inter alia, weight, measure any quantity of the cargo shipped, and the conditions of carriage. The bill of lading also records the terms and conditions of afreightment as well as, inter alia, weight, measure any quantity of the cargo shipped, and the conditions of carriage. A charter party, however, is not merely a contract of affraightment (Page 27 begins) between the charter and the ship-owner. It is a contract of hiring of the ship and it contains various clauses casting various obligations on the parties to the contract and also granting various exceptions and exemptions to the carrier. A charter party may also contain an Arbitration Clause. In the instant case, as already observed, the charter party here contains an arbitration clause, relevant portion whereof has been set out earlier. Clause 1 of conditions of carriage contained in the bill of lading set out hereinbefore no doubt records that all terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the charter party are incorporated in the bill of lading but the question is that is the extent and effect of the said clause in the bill of lading and incorporation sought to be made thereby. (Page 28 begins) The very passage cited by Mr. Gupta from Lloyd's Time Charter (1982 Edn) that bills of lading frequently incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of a charter including the arbitration clause would seem to suggest that a clause or a term in the bill of lading merely incorporating to terms and conditions of the charter therein without anything more will not incorporate the arbitration clause in the bill of lading but something more or some indication would be necessary which might lead the Court to come to the conclusion that by such incorporation the Arbitration Clause contained in the charter party was also intended to be incorporated in the bill of lading. The arbitration clause contained in the charter party in the case is also not so worded that it (Page 29 begins) would cover the disputes under the bill of lading as well as under the charter party. In this context Article 33 at pages 61 to 63 of serution on charter parties and Bills of Lading (28th E.) may be profitably noted :- "Article 33 Incorporation of charter in Bill of Lading General. In this context Article 33 at pages 61 to 63 of serution on charter parties and Bills of Lading (28th E.) may be profitably noted :- "Article 33 Incorporation of charter in Bill of Lading General. It is very common practice to include in Bills of Lading issued in respect of goods carried on a chartered ship, a provision purporting to incorporate into the bills some or all of the terms of the charter party. There are numerous decisions on the effect of such provisions. It appears that in order to ascertain which, if any, terms of the charter are incorporated into the bills, an enquiry in three stages must be clarified out: (1) The incorporating clause must (Page 30 begins) be constructed in order to sea whether it is wide enough to being about a prima facie incorporation of the relevant term. General words of incorporation will be effective to incorporate only those terms of the charter party which relate to the shipment, carriage or discharge of the cargo or the payment of freight. Which of those terms are incorporated into the bill depends on the width of the incorporating provision. Where specific words of incorporation are used, either in there charter or in the bill, they are effective to bring about a prima facie incorporation even if the term in question does not relate to shipment, carriage or discharge where the intention is doubtful, the Court will not hold that (Page 31 begins) the term is incorporated. (2) If it is found that the incorporating clause is wide enough to effect a prima facie incorporation, the term which is sought to be incorporated must be examined to see whether it makes sense in the context of the bill of lading; if it does not, it must be rejected. This process would be performed intelligently and no mechanically. Where the term relates to shipment, carriage or delivery, some degree of manipulation is permissible to make its words fit the bill of lading but not where the term relates to other matters. (3) Where there is an incorporation with which is prima facie effective, the term in question must be examined to see whether it is consistent with the express terms of the bill. If it (Page 32 begins) is not, it will be rejected." 25. (3) Where there is an incorporation with which is prima facie effective, the term in question must be examined to see whether it is consistent with the express terms of the bill. If it (Page 32 begins) is not, it will be rejected." 25. In the instant case the said Clause I contained in the bill of lading relates to and is one of the conditions of carriage contained in the bill of lading. Thus, in my opinion, the said Clause incorporates in the bill of lading only those terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the charter party which relate to the conditions of carriage of the said Cargo. The arbitration clause in the charter party could not be said to be a condition of carriage. 26. Here the bill of lading makes it clear as to in prospect of which matters the terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the charter party are incorporated in the bill of lading, and the same relate to the conditions of carriage only. The (Page 33 begins) intent and purpose of the incorporation is clear, unequivocal and express. The use of wide words namely, "all terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions in the charter party" would not bring in or incorporate the arbitration clause at the charter party into the bill of lading inasmuch as the same would be consistent to the clear intent, purpose and express terms of incorporation as contained in the bill of lading. Thus, in my opinion, the arbitration clause in the charter party could not be said to have been incorporated in the bill of lading. Thus, the arbitration clause in the charter party could not be said to have been incorporated in the bill of lading so as to entitle the petitioner to make an application for stay of the said Suit under section 3 of the Foreign Awards Act. 27. (Page 34 begins) The endorsement in the bill of lading that the bill of lading is to be used with the charter party has to be read and understood in the context of the bill of lading. 27. (Page 34 begins) The endorsement in the bill of lading that the bill of lading is to be used with the charter party has to be read and understood in the context of the bill of lading. The bill of lading being a document evidencing shipment and carriage of the cargo and also being relevant to the discharge of the cargo, the said endorsement has to be read and understood in that context and would therefore mean that the bill of lading is to be used with the charter party in so far as it relates to shipment, carriage and discharge of the cargo. The said endorsement cannot be so construed as to bring in or incorporate the arbitration clause of the charter party into the bill of lading. 28. The bill of lading bring a document title and being also negotiable the property in the (Page 35 beings) cargo covered by the bill of lading passes to the holder thereof who might be the consignee named, the in or a subsequent endorsee. Here however, the State Trading Corporation the consignee named in the bill of lading being also the holder thereof, the property in the said cargo passed to the State Trading Corporation and it was therefore liable to pay the freight on the terms of the contract in the bill of lading as if the contract has been made with it or in other words, there would be a presumption as if the contract of carriage was made with the State Trading Corporation. Here of course, the freight being agreed upon between the State Trading Corporation and the seller Bunge and the same having been prepaid there was no further question of payment of freight by State Trading (Page 36 begins) Corporation. The State Trading Corporation as the consignee was therefore not only entitled to receive delivery of the said Cargo as and when the same arrived at the ports of discharge but was also entitled to use the carrier for loss or damage occaring at any stage of transit. This is made clear by the Bills of Lading Act, 1856. 29. The State Trading Corporation as the consignee was therefore not only entitled to receive delivery of the said Cargo as and when the same arrived at the ports of discharge but was also entitled to use the carrier for loss or damage occaring at any stage of transit. This is made clear by the Bills of Lading Act, 1856. 29. Under section of the Bills of Lading Act every consignee of goods named in a bill of lading and every endorsee to whom the property in the goods therein mentioned shall page, upon or by reason of such consignment or endorsement shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit and be subject to the same liabilities in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading has been made with himself. 30. (Page 37 begins) Under section 3 of the Bills of Lading Act a bill of lading in the hands of the consignee or an endorsee for valuable consideration is conclusive evidence of the shipment of the goods as against Master or other person signing the same subject however to the exceptions contained in the proviso to the said section. It could not therefore be said that the State Trading Corporation had no cause of action against the petitioner for the said Suit or that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner. The provisions contained in sections 1 and 3 of the Bills of Lading Act, 1856 conferred right to the consignee or endorsee of the bill of lading to use the charrier for damages for short lading. The suit instituted by the State Trading Corporation, inter alia, against the petitioner (Page 38 begins) being a suit for damages for short lading of the cargo would therefore be maintainable. On the views that I have taken, this application cannot succeed and is therefore dismissed with costs. "Stay is prayed for one month and as such stay for one month is granted as prayed."