CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal involves a short point under the Arbitration Act, 1940, arising out of the following facts.

( 2 ) ON 25-8-1951, a contract was entered into between the appellant, The India Plosiery Works, and the respondent, Bharat Woollen Mills Ltd. , by which the respondent agreed to- sell and the appellant agreed to buy 10,000 lbs. of woollen yarn at a certain price, the goods to be delivered by a certain date. The contract contained the following arbitration clause:"all disputes whatsoever arising in or out of or in connection with the said contract or arising in any way whatsoever in connection with any other contract for the supply of goods by the Company to the Buyers shall be referred to arbitration at Calcutta. The decision of its Tribunal of Arbitration shall be final and binding on both parties, either of whom may make the same a Rule of Court. "

( 3 ) ON 28-3-1952, the respondent filed an application on the Original Side of this Court for an order under Section 20, Arbitration Act, that the arbitration agreement be filed in Court, for appointment of an arbitrator and for a reference oi' the dispute which had arisen out of the contract to the arbitrator so appointed. It was alleged in the application that the appellant had wrongfully failed and neglected to take delivery of the contracted goods whereupon the respondent had sold them on notice to the appellant and Buffered damages to the extent of Rs. 35,000/-and that upon a deduction of Rs. 20,000/- which the appellant had paid as advance, the respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 15,000/. It was alleged further that the appellant was wrongfully denying the respondent's claim and asserting that it had rightly cancelled the contract and had refused to concur in the appointment of one Hiralaljee whom the respondent had nominated in terms of the arbitration agreement to act as the sole arbitrator and was in fact denying the respondent's right to appoint any arbitrator at all,

( 4 ) BY the affidavit--in-opposition filed on its behalf, the appellant repudiated the respondent's claim for damages and took the further plea that the arbitration agreement was "vague, indefinite, void and unenforceable in law" and inasmuch as it did not provide for appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators by consent of parties, the appellant could not, and had not to, concur in any appointment made by the respondent.

( 5 ) THE application came to be heard by Bachawat J. Before him it was argued that the arbitration agreement was void for uncertainty and the uncertainty alleged was that no arbitrator had been named in the agreement and the mode of the appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators had also not been specified. The learned Judge held that in view of the definition of arbitration agreement, as contained in Section 2 (a) of the Act, it was not necessary that any arbitrator should be named and since Section 20 of the Act expressly authorised the Court to make an order of reference to the arbitrator appointed by the parties or, in the absence of agreement between them, to an arbitrator appointed by the Court, such an appointment could be made in the case, inasmuch as the arbitration clause did not name any arbitrator and the parties were also not agreed. In that view, he directed the agreement to be filed and made an order of reference to one Ganeshlal Nahata. To the choice of that particular arbitrator, neither party objected.

( 6 ) BEFORE us, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the arbitration agreement had been wrongly held to be valid. It was pointed out that Section 20 (1) of the Act contemplated agreements in respect of which a party could proceed either under that section, or under Chap. II, as the section itself stated, and on that basis it was contended that no agreement could be recognised and acted upon under Section 20 (1), unless it satisfied the requirements of Chap. II, that is to say, unless it was an agreement under wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document