9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arbitration agreement post-modifications. 2. Legality of the second Tribunal's constitution. 3. Alleged misconduct and failure to appreciate the dispute by arbitrators. 4. Jurisdiction of arbitrators to award damages. 5. Alleged error on the face of the award. 6. Alleged bias of arbitrators. 7. Applicability of the West Bengal Jute (Control of Prices) Act 1950. 8. Extension of time for making the award. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Arbitration Agreement Post-Modifications: The petitioner argued that the arbitration agreement was no longer valid due to subsequent variations in the original contract. The court acknowledged that there were modifications, such as extensions of shipment time and temporary arrangements for payment guarantees. However, it concluded that these modifications did not rescind the original contract or the arbitration clause. The court cited Lord Atkinson's principle that mere alterations do not amount to rescission unless they go to the root of the contract. The modifications were deemed to be incorporated into the original contract, preserving the arbitration clause. 2. Legality of the Second Tribunal's Constitution: The petitioner challenged the constitution of the second Tribunal under Rule 7 of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce's rules, alleging it was illegal and opposed to Section 28 of the Arbitration Act. The court referred to its previous judgment in 'In re Arbn., Laduram Kedia v. Dhunichand Sanehi' and found no substance in this contention. The second Tribunal was deemed legally constituted and competent to arbitrate the disputes. 3. Alleged Misconduct and Failure to Appreciate the Dispute by Arbitrators: The petitioner alleged that the arbitrators failed to apply their minds and appreciate the real dispute, thus misconducting themselves. The court found no material evidence to support this allegation and noted that counsel for the petitioners did not address any arguments on these charges. Consequently, this charge failed. 4. Jurisdiction of Arbitrators to Award Damages: The petitioner contended that the arbitrators could not award damages as the respondent's original reference letter did not explicitly claim damages. The court determined that the arbitrators were entitled to look at the substance of the matter and grant relief, even if not perfectly worded. The arbitrators had jurisdiction to award the difference in price as the respondent had provided full particulars of their claim in subsequent statements, allowing the petitioner to meet the specific case. The court distinguished this case from 'Mathuradas Govardhandas v. Khusiram Benarshilal,' where the claim before the arbitrator was based on a new cause of action not asserted before the reference. 5. Alleged Error on the Face of the Award: The petitioner asserted that there was an error apparent on the face of the award. However, no arguments were presented on this charge, leading the court to dismiss it. 6. Alleged Bias of Arbitrators: The petitioner claimed that the arbitrators were biased. The court found no evidence of bias and dismissed this charge. 7. Applicability of the West Bengal Jute (Control of Prices) Act 1950: The petitioner argued that the arbitrators failed to consider that the respondent was entitled to damages based on rates not exceeding the maximum controlled price under the West Bengal Jute (Control of Prices) Act 1950. During arguments, the petitioner abandoned this point, leading to its dismissal. 8. Extension of Time for Making the Award: The Dutch Company applied for an extension of time to make the award until 17-10-1951. The court found no unreasonable delay by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and granted the extension as a matter of course. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of this application. Conclusion: The petition to set aside the award was dismissed with costs. The court also addressed the application for extension of time, granting it and ordering the petitioner to bear the costs. The matter of judgment upon the award was adjourned until 15-3-1953, with an expectation that the appeal would be disposed of before that date.
|
