SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Cal) 202

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
PUSHRAJ PURANMAL - Appellant
Versus
CLIVE MILLS CO. LTD. - Respondent
Award Case 26  Of  1959
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 07, 1959

The main legal point established in the judgment is that unfiled awards remain binding as per the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration agreement does not merge in the previous awards.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Jurisdiction - Award Nos. 535 and 539 of 1957 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Arbitration Act, Rule 30 of Rules of Arbitration - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to make a fresh application for a further award determining damages or compensation payable, the binding nature of unfiled awards as per the arbitration agreement, and the permissibility of multiple awards under the same arbitration agreement.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from a contract for the sale and delivery of jute cuttings. The petitioner challenged an award on the basis of two previous unfiled awards, contending that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction and that the arbitration agreement merged in the award.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the arbitrators had jurisdiction to make a fresh application for a further award determining damages or compensation payable. It held that unfiled awards remained binding as per the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement did not merge in the previous awards.

Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, the binding nature of unfiled awards, and the permissibility of multiple awards under the same arbitration agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, the Arbitration Act, and Rule 30 of the Rules of Arbitration, which allowed for a fresh application for a further award determining damages or compensation payable.

Final Decision: The application to set aside the award was dismissed, and the court held that the unfiled awards remained binding as per the arbitration agreement, and the arbitration agreement did not merge in the previous awards.

P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Pushraj Puranmal to set aside award No. 575 of 1958 in Case No. 438 of 1958, dated 21-8-1958 made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

( 2 ) THE only ground on which the award has been challenged before me appears in paragraph 29 of the petition. Briefly that objection is that this award proceeds on the basis of two previous awards which have not been filed and on which court's pronouncement has not been obtained. It is then said that the said two previous awards are bad but because those awards had not been filed in court the petitioner could not have them set aside by the court. Therefore, it is contended first that the arbitrators did not have any jurisdiction to decide upon the basis of the previous awards and secondly that to allow judgment to be pronounced on this present award in dispute will virtually enable the respondent to enforce unfiled awards upon which no judgment of the court has been pronounced. It is also pleaded in that paragraph that the petitioners will in future take steps to have these two previous awards set aside as soon as the same would be filed in Court. Finally it is contended that once an award is made the whole arbitration agreement merges in the award and therefore no fresh reference on the same arbitration agreement and no fresh award thereupon can any longer be made.

( 3 ) BEFORE discussing these arguments and deciding the points of objection, I shall briefly state the few relevant facts leading to this dispute.

( 4 ) THIS was a contract by which the petitioner agreed to sell and deliver to the respondent 500 bales of jute cuttings on terms and conditions of the written contract, being Contract No. 37 dated 4-6-1957. It contains the usual arbitration clause. Clause 14 of this contract provides as follows :"all matters, questions, disputes, differences, and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/ or in connection with and/or in consequence of or relating to this contract including matters relating to insurance and demurrage whether or not the obligations of either or both parties under this contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed shall be referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry under the Rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration for the time being in force and according to such rules the arbitration shall be conducted and any Award made by the said Tribunal under this clause shall be final, binding and conclusive on the parties. "

( 5 ) WHAT happened in this case was that there were two prior references to arbitration by the respondents between the same parties on this contract but the two previous awards on these references did not determine the amount of money liable to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. These two previous awards only decided the principle whether the goods offered were fair tender which should be accepted at contract rate and what should be the percentage of allowance for dust and damaged fibres. A glance at the two awards will make that clear, In Award No. 535 of 1957 in case No. 527 of 1957 dated 28-8-1957 between the same parties all that the arbitrators decided and awarded were as follows :"1. That the cuttings under item (b) above are a fair tender under the contract, and that the buyers shall accept and pay for these 156 bales at the contract rate without any allowance; 2. That the sellers shall make to the buyers an allowance of 12 1/2 per cent (twelve and half per cent) for dust and damaged fibre on 27,127 lbs. Cuttings.-- item (a) above -- subject to which allowance the buyers shall accept and pay for these 94 bales at the contract rate; 3. That the cost of the arbitration which we fix at Rs. 404/- shall be paid as follows : (a) The buyers shall pay Rs. 201-0-0; (b) The sellers shall pay to the buyers Rs. 203-0-0 which amounts are to be recovered by















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top