A contract that does not comply with the mandatory form prescribed under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Bye-laws of the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd. is illegal and cannot be enforced.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for setting aside the award made by the Tribunal of Arbitration. The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Calcutta. The fact relating to the arbitration proceeding is that there was a contract between the appellant and the respondent coining under the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd. , Calcutta for Trading in Transferable Specific Delivery Contracts in Raw Jute and Jute Goods and Rules (Sic ). The transferable specific delivery contracts in raw jute and jute goods are embodied in the Rules framed under the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd. The contract also is to be found in Appendix X of the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Ltd. , Calcutta (Working Manual Vol. III ). There was no dispute that some sort of agreement was entered into by Alliance Mills (Lessees)" Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Madan Gopal and Sons in a form which is akin to Appendix II as hereinbefore stated. But it appears from the original that the rubber stamp which was embossed on the same form could not be deciphered.

( 2 ) THESE matters were being heard by us sometime in Mar. 1978 and we passed an order on the same by consent of parties. It is imperative what is imprinted by the rubber stamp must be deciphered. We, however, made the order on 20th Mar,, 1978 by sending back the matter to the learned Judge, City Civil Court for decision on the following issues framed by us " (1) Whether the Transferable Specific Delivery Contract for Jute Goods being Contract No, JG/c-10053 dated 9th Dec. , 1971 is statutory form upon which the contract was entered into ? and (2) What was the prescribed form prevalent on the date of the Contract?" We also directed that the parties should be given liberty to adduce evidence,

( 3 ) THE learned Judge however sent his decisions on the said two issues to this Court holding inter alia that the contract was not entered into in the statutory form and secondly, that statutory form in Appendix II at the page next to 93 of the Working Manual Vol. III is a form with up-to-date amendments as prevalent on the date of contract as on 9th Dec. 1971.

( 4 ) AFTER the records were sent to us with a decision of the learned Judge, the matter could not be heard because a number of adjournments were taken by the parties on different grounds in eluding the one that one of the appeals in which the main judgment was printed, was not ready. Be that as it may. though belated, all the matters could be heard analogously today.

( 5 ) MR. P. N. Chatterjee on behalf of the appellant contended firstly that the doctrine of substantial compliance has no application in the present case, The contract not being in the prescribed form, there is no contract and as such, arbitration clause is not applicaable. Secondly, it is argued by Mr. Chatterjee that so far as the option clause is concerned the Rule in. Chapt. v. Sub-rule (3) time will have to be specified and no time having been specified in the contract itself, the parties are not entitled in law to rely on custom.

( 6 ) MR. K. K. Maitra on behalf of the respondent, however, contended that it is not Chap. V but Chapter VII of the Working Manual, Vol. III applies. It is also contended by Mr. Moitra that the Supreme Court judgment as has no application in the facts of the present case, as there was no scoring or cancellation in the statutory form prescribed under the Manual, It is argued further by Mr. Moitra that no prejudice is caused to the seller, when subsequent to the contract about the option in regard to the time, element for the exercise of option is present as contained in Rule 3 of Chap. V of the Working Manual, Vol. III Mr. Moitra further contended that the matter had gone to the arbitration and the appellant cannot now raise the question having submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and it cannot also say that the arbitration was without jurisdiction. Mr. Moitra