P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by Jupiter General Insurance Company Limited to set aside an award by Sir Rupendra Coomar Mitter dated 12-4-1955 and to declare it null and void.

( 2 ) THE dispute is between the applicant, an Insurance Company, and the Corporation of Calcutta. It arises out of a policy of insurance No. C. T. 890 which the Corporation of Calcutta took cut on 19-4-1952 whereby the Insurance Company agreed to indemnify the Corporation up to a limit of Rs. 1. 50,000/- against any loss of money occasioned by robbery, theft, or any other cause whatever whilst in transit.

( 3 ) WHAT happened was that on 3-12-1952, a bag containing cheques of the value of Rs. 2,36,179*13-6 and cash amounting to Rs. 28,694-7-6 was removed at about 12 noon by an undetected thier from the office table of Bhupendra Krishna Sinha, a general clerk employed in the Treasurer's Department of the Corporation of Calcutta. Payment of the cheques was stopped and the moneys covered by such cheques were recovered by the Corporation of Calcutta from the drawees. But the cash money, amounting to Rs. 28,694-7-6 could not be recovered. The Corporation demanded this money from the Insurance Company under the policy. The insurance company disputed the claim.

( 4 ) THE dispute was referred to two Arbitrators at first, each being a nominee of the respective disputants. These Arbitrators disagreed. The dispute thereafter was referred to the umpirage of Sir Rupendra Coomar Mitter.

( 5 ) THE umpire by his award held that the Corporation of Calcutta was entitled to recover the said sum of Rs. 28,694-7-6 in respect of the claim against, the Insurance Company under the said Policy. That is Clause 12 "a" of his award. The umpire also settled and awarded the costs of the reference of the award and umpirage at the sum of Rs. 11,098/- Which the Insurance Company was directed and ordered to pay to the Corporation of Calcutta. That is Clause 12"b" of the award.

( 6 ) THE grounds for setting aside the award are set out in sub-paras (a) to (i) of Para 30 of the the petition. Mr. P. Mukherjee learned Counsel appearing for the

applicant, however, has urged only three grounds (b), (f) and (h ). He has abandoned all other grounds and which fact is here recorded.

( 7 ) TWO outstanding points of very great importance arise for determination in this application. The first is whether the Corporation has any power under the Statute of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 or the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 to refer any matter to arbitration and whether the arbitration clause in the Policy of Insurance is 'ultra vires' such Calcutta Municipal Act and, therefore, void. It is on that ground the first objection is made that an award founded upon a void arbitration agreement is also void. The second point of importance is whether the award is bad on the face of it. Another ground of objection is that the Umpire in his Award has not separately answered the specific issues raised before him.

( 8 ) I shall take up first the major question whether the Corporation of Calcutta has the statutory power to refer disputes to arbitration in this case.

( 9 ) THE Insurance policy itself contained the Arbitration Clause whose material portion is as follows: "if any dispute arises as to whether the company is liable under this policy or as to the amount of its liability such dispute shall be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or if they cannot agree upon a single Arbitrator to the decision of two disinterested persons as Arbitrators of whom one shall be appointed in writing by each of the parties * * * In case of disagreement between the Arbitrators the difference shall be referred to the decision of an Umpire who shall have been employed by them in writing before entering into the reference and he shall sit on the arbitration and preside over the reference * *. The cost of the reference and of the award shall be in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document