## Facts

- Compania de Transportes der me Sociodato Anomia (Compania) entered into a charter contract with Mataichi K.K. (Mataichi), a Japanese ship owner.
- The charter contract was formed in the United States.
- The contract contained an arbitration clause requiring disputes arising from the contract to be resolved by a three-member arbitral panel seated in New York.
- Mataichi allegedly cancelled the charter contract.
- Compania filed a civil lawsuit against Mataichi in Japan instead of commencing arbitration in New York.
- Mataichi raised an affirmative defense seeking dismissal of the Japanese action based on the arbitration clause.
- Compania argued the arbitration clause was unenforceable because Japan did not recognize foreign arbitral awards at the time.
- Compania also argued Mataichi could not rely on the arbitration clause after allegedly cancelling the charter contract.

## Issues

1. Whether a Japanese court should dismiss (or otherwise refuse to proceed with) a civil action when the parties’ charter contract contains a New York–seated arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the contract.
2. Whether a party alleged to have cancelled or repudiated the charter contract may still invoke the arbitration clause as a defense to court litigation.

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court decided the case reported at 4 Kakyū Minshū (No. 4) 34 (1953) in a dispute involving enforcement of a New York arbitration clause in a charter contract.
- Publicly accessible English-language sources confirm the parties’ arguments and the arbitration-defense posture, but do not provide the court’s operative disposition or a reliable summary of the court’s reasoning.
- Because the judgment text (or a trustworthy quotation-based discussion) is not available in the accessible record, the outcome (e.g., dismissal, stay, or continuation of the Japanese suit) cannot be stated here without speculation.

## Legal Principles

- The case is an example of a Japanese court being asked to give effect, in domestic civil proceedings, to a foreign-seated arbitration clause in an international commercial contract.
- The dispute presented the enforceability question in the specific setting of (i) arbitration seated in New York and (ii) an argument that foreign arbitral awards were not recognized in Japan at the time.
- The case also presented the separability-related question commonly raised in arbitration disputes: whether an arbitration clause can still be invoked when the underlying contract is alleged to have been cancelled or repudiated.
- No definitive rule statement, as applied by the Tokyo District Court in this decision, can be provided from the accessible materials.

## Conclusion

*Compania de Transportes der me Sociodato Anomia v. Mataichi K.K.* involved a charter contract formed in the United States that required New York arbitration before a three-member panel, followed by alleged cancellation, suit filed in Japan, and a defense seeking dismissal based on the arbitration clause; however, without an accessible copy of the judgment or a reliable quotation-based secondary account, the court’s final disposition and reasoning cannot be reported.


Compania de Transportes der me Sociodato Anomia v. Mataichi K.K., 4 Kakyū Minshū (No. 4) 34 (1953)