Arbitrators must have jurisdiction and must not commit legal misconduct in making awards, such as awarding damages based on black market rates or an extension of the due date without evidence or material to support such a finding.

( 1 ) THESE are three connected appeals from an order and two decrees of Sinha J. By the said order Sinha J. dismissed two applns. to set aside awards made by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and made two decrees in favour of the resps. in terms of the two awards.

( 2 ) THE parties to these three appeals entered into two contracts for the sale and put chase of certain jute materials. By contract no. 130 of 15-2-1946 the applts. agreed to sell to the resp. 3,60 000 B Twill gunny bags at Rs. 64-4 0 per hundred bags. Delivery was to be made by equal instalments in the months of July, August and September.

( 3 ) BY a second contract No. 131 of 16-2-1946 the applts. agreed to sell to the reaps. a similar quantity of B Twill gunny bags at Rs. 64-4-0 per hundred bags. The terms relating to delivery were similar to those in contract No. 130. Bach of these contracts contained an arbitration clause which is in these terms :"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 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 refd. to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under the rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration for the time being in force and according to such rules the arbitration shall be conducted. "

( 4 ) ON 9-3-1946, it was agreed between the parties that only 90,000 bags per month should be delivered under contract No. 131. The applts. apparently paid the resp the damages in respect of the remaining 30,000 bags per month which they could not deliver.

( 5 ) THE applts. failed to deliver the bags due under bath contracts for the months of July and August, but their failure to deliver was settled by payment of the difference between the prices of these bags on due date and the contract price. After such settlement there was left only the September deliveries under both contracts.

( 6 ) ON 23-9-1946 the applts. by letter informed the resps. that they could not deliver any gunny bags under either of the contracts for the month of September and they asked the resps. to submit their bills for the loss sustained by reason of this non-delivery. On 1-10-1946 the resps. sent to the applts. two bills--one for Rs. 12,600 being the loss in respeat of contract No. 130 Rs. 16,650 being the loss in respect of contract No. 131. The loss was estimated as the difference between the price of Rs. 78-4-0 per hundred bags and the contract prices.

( 7 ) IT is common ground that until 30-9-1946 the Jute Price Control Order was in force and that the price of one hundred B Twill gunny bags on 30-9-1946 was Rs. 66-12-0. The resps. did not apparently deny this but they claimed that damages should be assessed on the price ruling not on September 30 when the contracts came to an end, but on the following day, namely, 1-10-1946. On that date the resps. contended that the price of jute had risen to Rs. 78-4-0 by reason of the fact that the Jute Price Control Order had ceased to be operative at midnight on September 30.

( 8 ) THE applts. refused to pay the amounts stated in the resps' bills and on 23-6-1947 the matter was refd. to the arbitration of a Tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce at the Instance of the applts.

( 9 ) ON 3-7-1947, the Registrar of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce wrote to the applts. informing them that the resps had filed their case and calling upon the applts. to submit their case. On 16-7-1947 the Registrar of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce sent notices to the applts. and resps. that he had on that day duly constituted a Court under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce to decide the dispute. On July 23 the Registrar again wrote to the applts. informing them that he had been directed by the arbitrators