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

1987 Supreme(Cal) 161

CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE, SUDHANSHU SEKHAR GANGULY
NANALAL M. VARMA, CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
ALEXANDRA JUTE MILLS LTD. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.BACHAVAT, BARIN GHOSH

CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE, C. J.

( 1 ) ON April 19, 1973 the appellant and the respondent whose management had been taken over by the Central Government under S. 18a of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 had entered into a contract, under which the respondent had sold to the appellant goods whose agreed value was Rs. 84,867. 71. In spite of demand the appellant did not pay the said amount. Purporting to rely upon the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the respondent had applied to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry for adjudicating by Tribunal of Arbitrators the dispute in respect of the non-payment of the said amount. Upon the receipt of the notice the appellant had disputed the authority of the Tribunal of Arbitrators to adjudicate the said dispute, inter alia, on the ground that the subject-matter of reference was not covered by the arbitration clause inasmuch as the said non-payment did not amount to a dispute within the arbitration clause in question. The Tribunal proceeded with the Reference and the appellant did not participate in the same.

( 2 ) THE award having been given the appellant was served with a notice under S. 14 (1) of the Arbi










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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top