JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, Acting C.J. :---This appeal is preferred against judgment dated April 19, 1994 delivered by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No. 170 of 1993. The arbitration petition is filed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. By impugned judgment, the learned Judge passed a decree in terms of the Award and directed the appellants to pay costs to the respondents. The facts which gave rise to the passing of impugned judgment are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievances made in the appeal. 2. On June 30, 1993 the respondents chartered vessel "S. Araz" to the appellants for the carriage of cargo of merchandise on a time charter trip via India to the Middle East, re-delivery Mediterranean on the terms and conditions as set out in the said charter party. Clause 17 and additional Clause 85 of the Charter-Party inter alia provided that if any dispute arises between the owners and charterers then the matter shall be referred to 3 persons at London, one to be appointed by each of the parties and third by the two and their decision shall be final and for the purpose of enforcing any award, agreement may be made a rule of the Court. The clause further provided that arbitration shall be held in London and as per English Arbitration Act. The dispute did arise between the parties in respect of withdrawal of the vessel by appellants and dispute was referred to the arbitrators. The arbitrators published their award on August 12, 1993. Arbitrators held (a) that appellants were entitled to withdraw vessel from the time charter service because the third instalment was paid late and because of short payment of the third instalment and (b) that the appellants shall pay a sum of Sterling Pounds 5672 as costs of arbitrators. Award further provided thus : "... and we reserve to ourselves the right to make a further award or awards as may be appropriate in respect of the matters still outstanding between the parties". The respondents forwarded their bill of costs and arbitrators issued an Award of taxed costs on April 5, 1994. The arbitrators held that the respondents are entitled to costs of Sterling Pounds 26,757.57. 3. The respondents forwarded their bill of costs and arbitrators issued an Award of taxed costs on April 5, 1994. The arbitrators held that the respondents are entitled to costs of Sterling Pounds 26,757.57. 3. The respondents then preferred Arbitration Petition No. 170 of 1993 against petitioners and to this petition Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. were joined as respondent No. 2. Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Limited acted as an agent of the appellants in respect of the business of charter and certain amount payable to the appellants was lying in the Bank account maintained by the said Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. The respondents sought judgment and decree in accordance with the Award passed by the arbitrators in the petition. The petition was resisted by appellants on two grounds. First contention urged was that Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain petition in view of provisions of section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961. The second contention was that the petition filed by respondents in respect of awarding taxed costs of Sterling Pounds 26,757.57 was not maintainable as respondents did not file either the original Award or the copy of the Award duly certified in accordance with English Award. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents did not find favour with the learned Judge and by impugned judgment, the learned Judge passed decree as sought by respondents. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is under challenge. 4. Shri Pratap, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents raised a preliminary objection in respect of the maintainability of the appeal. Learned Counsel submitted that sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Foreign Award (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 inter alia provides that appeal shall not lie from the judgment pronounced and decree passed in pursuance of the judgment except insofar as decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the Award. Shri Pratap submitted that present appeal did not find an averment that the decree for payment is not in accordance with the Award and, therefore, appeal is not competent. There is considerable merit in the submission advanced by learned Counsel but as the appeal was admitted, we propose to dispose it of on merits. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterated two contentions pressed before the learned Single Judge. There is considerable merit in the submission advanced by learned Counsel but as the appeal was admitted, we propose to dispose it of on merits. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants reiterated two contentions pressed before the learned Single Judge. It was urged that Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and consequently the judgment under appeal is required to be set aside. In para 18 of the petition, it was averred by the respondents that appellants carry on business in Bombay through their agents Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. Respondents further made a grievance that certain amount which belongs to Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. and which is liable to attachment is available in Bombay. In para 15 of the petition, it is averred that the amount belonging to the appellant is lying in the Bank account in the name of Sai Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the same is liable to attachment. Respondents further claimed that proceedings of arbitration petition are in the nature of execution of the Award and consequently the proceedings can be instituted in any place where the funds of the appellants are available. Section 5 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961 inter alia sets out that any person interested in Foreign Award may apply to any Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Award. The Supreme Court examined the question in its judgment in the matter of (Brace Transport Corporation of Monrovia Bermuda v. Orient Middle East Lines Ltd., Saudi Arabia and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1994 Supreme Court 1715. In the case before the Supreme Court, Foreign Award arising out of selling of ship from one Company to another was sought to be executed by sale of ship. This ship was sold by Foreign Company to Indian Company and Indian Company in its turn sold it to the firm of ship broker. As application was made to take Foreign Award on the file of the Court which had no jurisdiction, the ship was left by the ship broker on the ground that it is an asset of the Foreign Company. Supreme Court held that ship having been sold to Indian Company and then to Ship Brokers firm it is no more an asset of the Foreign Company and Award cannot be executed. Supreme Court held that ship having been sold to Indian Company and then to Ship Brokers firm it is no more an asset of the Foreign Company and Award cannot be executed. Supreme Court then held thus : "However, considering the fact that money was subject matter of award in question and that the Indian Company was holding money which was due to purchaser Foreign Company, the Court had jurisdiction to entertain petition". Shri Pratap submits and in our judgment with considerable merit that decision of the Supreme Court supports the contention of the respondents that Bombay Court had jurisdiction because moneys belonging to the appellants were available within the jurisdiction of this Court. Smt. Iyer countered this submission by alleging that Award considered by the Supreme Court specifically provided for payment of money while that is not the case in the present Award. Learned Counsel urged that the Award in the present case is only for declaration that the respondents are entitled to withdraw the vessel and grant of costs both of the arbitration proceedings and those incurred by respondents cannot be treated as money decree. It is not possible to accede to the submission of learned Counsel. Once costs was awarded by arbitrator or the Court, it forms part of the Award already decreed and it is futile to suggest that amount of costs is not a part of decree and cannot be considered as decree proceedings for payment of money. In our judgment, once the amount is crystalised, then it becomes a part of money decree and is perfectly executable and as the amount is admittedly available within the jurisdiction of Bombay Court, the contention that Bombay Court could not have entertained the petition cannot be acceded to. The first contention of learned Counsel is, therefore, required to be turned down. 6. The second contention urged by learned Counsel in support of the appeal is that the learned Judge was in error in passing judgment and decree in terms of the Award when the Award in respect of the costs was not filed before the learned Judge. Petition was lodged on September 13, 1993 while Award of taxed costs was declared on April 5, 1994 determining that appellants are liable to pay Sterling Pounds 26,757.57 towards costs of the respondents and Sterling Pounds 1075 towards costs of arbitration. Petition was lodged on September 13, 1993 while Award of taxed costs was declared on April 5, 1994 determining that appellants are liable to pay Sterling Pounds 26,757.57 towards costs of the respondents and Sterling Pounds 1075 towards costs of arbitration. Prithviraj Arya, Constituted Attorney of the respondents filed affidavit dated April 7, 1994 before the learned Single Judge and produced a copy of taxed costs declared on April 5, 1994. Smt. Iyer submits that this copy is neither the original Award nor duly authenticated as required by section 8 of the Foreign Awards Act. Section 8(1)(a) provides that the party applying for the enforcement of a Foreign Award shall, at the time of the application, produce the original award or a copy thereof, duly authenticated in the matter required by the law of the country in which it was made. This Court has framed rules under the Foreign Award Act and rules are included in Chapter XVIII of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side Rules. Rule 801 sets out documents to be produced with the petition. Relying on the provisions of Rule 801 Smt Iyer submitted that neither the original award declaring the taxed costs nor the copy duly authenticated is produced. The learned Single Judge was in error in passing the judgment and decree in terms of the Award. We found considerable merit in the submissions urged by learned Counsel and we called upon Shri Pratap to either produce the original or duly authenticated copy. Shri Pratap sought an adjournment and today produced the original Award dated April 5, 1994 duly signed by the arbitrators and witnesses. Original Award is taken on record and marked "X" in appeal. In view of the production of the Original Award, grievance of the appellants on this count does not survive. Smt. Iyer submitted that section 8(1)(a) of the Foreign Award Act demands that the document ought to have been produced at the time of presentation of the petition and as it is produced for the first time in appeal, the same should be ignored. It is not possible to accede to the contention for more than one reason. In the first instance Rule 802 provides that if the petition is presented without the documents supporting then the same shall be returned to the party and the Judge may allow time to file such document. It is not possible to accede to the contention for more than one reason. In the first instance Rule 802 provides that if the petition is presented without the documents supporting then the same shall be returned to the party and the Judge may allow time to file such document. It is, therefore, obvious that power has been conferred upon the Court to grant time to file the document and filing of document at the time of presentation of the petition is not sine-qua-non of valid presentation. Secondly, filing of the original award in appeal has not caused any prejudice whatsoever to the appellants. The appellants did not dispute that arbitrators had passed the Award providing for taxed costs and only contention was that original or copy duly authenticated was not produced. It is not open for the appellants now to claim that if the original is produced the same should not be taken on record. In our judgment, the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and appeal must fail. 7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with costs. Smt. Iyer prays for stay of execution of money decree. Prayer refused. Appeal dismissed. *****