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

1975 Supreme(Cal) 154

High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Hazra
BATOKRISTO ROY CO.PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
H.POLESY AND CO.(IMPORTERS) PVT.LTD. - Respondent
Awardcase 57  Of  1970
Decided On : 06/13/1975

Advocates Appeared:
A.C.BHABRA, AHIM CHAUDHURY, Bhaskar Gupta

An award of an arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground of perversity unless it is not supported by any evidence at all.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - AWARD - SETTING ASIDE - GROUNDS - PERVERSE AWARD - ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE AWARD - CHAIN CONTRACT - DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED.

Fact of the Case:

Batokristo Roy Company (Private) Limited (Roy Co.) entered into a contract with Australian Co. to sell 200 bales of jute goods in 4 monthly installments. Roy Co. purchased the goods from Ambica Jute Mills Limited (Mills) and shipped them to Australian Co. Australian Co. complained about the weight and quality of the goods and claimed damages. Roy Co. referred the dispute to the Tribunal of Arbitration of Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,862.88 to Australian Co. Roy Co. filed a petition to set aside the award, alleging that it was perverse and that the arbitrators had misconducted themselves.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the award was not perverse and that the arbitrators had not misconducted themselves. The court noted that there was evidence before the arbitrators to support their decision and that the difference in the amount of damages awarded in the two awards was due to the different terms and conditions of the contracts and the different parties involved.

Issues: 1. Whether the award was perverse? 2. Whether the arbitrators had misconducted themselves?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An award is perverse if it is not supported by any evidence at all. In this case, there was evidence before the arbitrators to support their decision. 2. The court cannot go into the merits of the dispute or the reasons for the arbitrators' decision in an application to set aside the award. The arbitrators had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question and they had decided it.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to set aside the award.

SALIL KUMAR HAZRA, J.

( 1 ) TWO petitions filed by Batokristo Roy Company (Private) Limited for setting aside two awards dated May 9, 1969 and July 19, 1969 by the Tribunal of Arbitration of Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry were assigned to me by the learned Chief Justice. The first petition was filed on July 30. 1970 for setting aside the award dated July 19, 1969. I shall deal with this petition first. The facts are shortly as follows : Batokristo Roy Company (Private) Ltd. (I shall shortly call Roy Co.) carries on business as importers, exporters and commission agents in jute and jute goods H. Polesy and Co. (Importers) Private Ltd. , a Company incorporated in Australia (I shall shortly call Australian Co.) carries on business as importers and dealers in jute and jute goods.

( 2 ) ON or about March 21, 1968 Roy Co. and Australian Co. entered into a contract whereby Australian Co agreed to buy from Roy Co. and Roy Co. agreed to sell to Australian Co. 200 bales of light wool packs of jute goods of certain specification and description. Under the contract the said goods were to be shipped in 4 monthly instalments of 50 bales each commencing from April 1968 i. e. . 50 bales were to he shipped in each of the months of April, May, June and July, 1968. Pursuant to the said contract in April 1968 50 bales of jute goods were supplied by Roy Co. to Australian Co. There was no dispute between the parties with regard to this supply. On May 10, 1968 Roy Co. entered into another contract with Ambica Jute Mills Limited (I shall shortly call the Mills) whereby the Mills agreed to sell to Roy Co. 750 bags, i. e. 150 bales of light wool packs of identical specification and description as mentioned in the contract between the Roy Co. and Australian Co. deliverable by Roy Co. to Australian Co. in the months of May. June and July. 1968. On May 19, 1968 the goods supplied by the Mills were despatched by Roy Co. to Australian Co, Similarly, in June 1968 the goods supplied by the Mills were despatched by Roy Co. to Australian Co. In July 1968 the goods supplied by the Mills were despatched to Australian Co There was no dispute between Aus ralian Co. and Roy Co. with regard to the goods despatched in July 1968. But in October 1968 Australian Co. complained about the weight and quality of the goods shipped in the month of June. 1968. On November 22, 1968 Australian Co. made similar complaint in respect of the goods supplied in the month of May 1968. On December 17, 1968 Roy Co. forwarded Australian Co. 's claim with regard to May consignments as to short weight and difference in quality to the Mills. Australian Co. preferred that their claims against Roy Co. and the matters in dispute between them may be decided by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On December 26, 1968 Roy Co. addressed a letter to the Registrar, Tribunal of Arbitration making a claim of Rs. 26,246. 69 p. against the Mills and referred the dispute raised by Australian Co. to the arbitration of Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry stating that the said amount claimed by Australian Co. should be paid by the Mills. It may be noted here that the contract dated May 10. 1969 between Roy Co. and the Mills contained a clause for arbitration of the dispute between the parties by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry Calcutta, whereas the contract between Roy Co. and Australian Co. . dated May 21, 1968 did not contain any arbitration clause. Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry declined to take up the matter in dispute between Roy Co. and Australian Co. unless Roy Co. and Australian Co. consented in writing to such arbitration by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. On December 31, 1968 Australian Co. agreed to accept the award of arbitration by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry and stated :"we will accept the award of arbitration pursuant to the claim which you are filing against the supplying mill provided the Chamber will accept the date 22nd November, 196


















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