P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for stay of a suit under Section 34, Arbitration Act. The Arbitration clause in this case is in the following terms:--"in the event of any dispute arising out of this contract the same can be settled by Arbitration held by a Chamber of Commerce at Madras. Their decision shall be binding to the Buyers and the Sellers".

( 2 ) THE suit which the plaintiff filed in this case is a suit claiming damages for breach of contract for non-delivery of the goods. The allegation is that the defendant agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to buy certain cargo loads of iron ore. The Arbitration clause that I have set out appears in this contracts.

( 3 ) APPARENTLY if there is a valid Arbitration agreement in that clause quoted above, the disputes alleged in the plaint are unquestionably disputes which come within the ambit of that Arbitration clause. But the whole point is whether this is a valid Arbitration agreement at all. Before discussing the construction of this clause, it is necessary to refer to the fact that there are five different Chambers of Commerce in Madras and according to a decision of S. R. Das Gupta, J. in 'karanji and Co. v. Indo-China Trading Co. , Ltd. ', 56 Cal WN 763 at p. 767 (A), such an Arbitration agreement is bad on the ground of being vague and indefinite in respect of the Arbitrator who is to arbitrate in the dispute. In answer to this decision reference was made by the applicant to the decision of the Court of Appeal in 'india Hosiery Works v. Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd. , where the effect of Sections 2, 8 and 20, Arbitration Act, among other sections, was considered by the Court of Appeal. The applicant contended before me that the decision in 'karanji's case (A)' should not be followed because it did not construe the effect of Section 2 (a) and Section 8, Arbitration Act and that the failure to name or even specify a definite arbitrator did not make an arbitration agreement invalid because of the express saving in Section 2 (a), Arbitration Act using the words "whether an arbitrator is named therein or not" in defining an arbitration agreement. Although the decision of the Court of Appeal was two years after the decision of 'karanji's case (A)', I do not find there any reference to 'karanji's case (A)'. It is, however, unnecessary for me to decide this particular point, whether 'karanji's case (A)' was rightly decided or not, because apart from the question that there are five different Chambers of Commerce in Madras, there is a more fundamental point in this case which vitiates, in my judgment, the validity of this alleged Arbitration agreement.

( 4 ) I know of no reported decision where any Arbitration clause used the word "can" as in this case. The Arbitration Clause in this case can at best mean that the dispute "can" be settled by Arbitration. But that does not mean that the dispute shall be settled by Arbitration. It only means this that after the dispute has occurred, the parties may go to Arbitration as an alternative method of settling the dispute instead of going to the Courts. But that means that after the dispute has arisen, the parties will have to come to a further agreement that they shall go to Arbitration. In other words, the clause at best means that it is a contract to enter into a contract. It denotes the possibility of Arbitration in the event of a future dispute. I do not consider a contract to enter into a contract to be a valid contract in law at all. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this is not a valid submission to Arbitration. The word "can" by the most liberal interpretation only indicates a possibility. A legal contract is more than a mere possibility. It is possibility added to obligation. If a seller says "i can sell goods" that does not mean an immediate or present contract to sell. Similarly, if a person says "i can go to arbitration" that statement does not make an immediate contract to send disputes to arbitration. A me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document