Judgement

Appeal (No. 107 of 1927) from an order of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (November 8, 1926) affirming an order of that Court in its original jurisdiction (April 19, 1926).

The appeal arose out of an award of arbitrators appointed in 1922 whereby the respondents were awarded damages for the defective quality of jute delivered by the appellants under contracts of sale made in 1913 and 1914 ; the award was subject to the opinion of the Court on the questions (1.)

Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 128 ( 1928- 1929) Ramdutt Ramkissendass V. F. D. Sassoon and Company

8

whether the defence of limitation could be raised, and if so (2.) whether the buyers (respondents) claim was barred.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The opinion of the Court delivered by Sanderson C.J. and Rankin was that the defence of limitation could be raised but that the claim was not barred.

That judgment not being open to appeal the appellants petitioned that the award (to which the opinion of the Court had been directed to be added) should be set aside on the ground that there was an error upon its face. The petition was dismissed by Buckland J. and that decision was affirm