Back
1925 Supreme(Cal) 557
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Page, J.
John Batt and Co. (London), Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kanoolal and Co. - Respondent
Decided On : 29-06-1925
Important Points
Subject
Arbitration Law - Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Act Referred
Headnote
Arbitration - Validity of Submission - Arbitration Act (IV of 1899) Section 4(b) - 33 C. 1237 : 10 C.W.N. 814. and 59 Ind. Cas. 75 : 42 A. 525 : 18 A.L.J. 652 : 2 U.P.L.R. (A.) 243. - The court discussed the validity of the submission for arbitration in London and the cancellation of the said submission. It interpreted the requirement of a written document signed by the parties or their agents for a valid submission to arbitration under Section 4(b) of the Arbitration Act (IV of 1899) and cited relevant case laws to support its interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought to enforce an award issued in their favor under the English Arbitration Act (52 and 53 Vict. Ch. 49) against the defendants for their refusal to take delivery of certain textile goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a valid submission for arbitration in London and that the submission remained in force as there was no express agreement to cancel it. The court also held that the award made pursuant to a valid submission can be enforced by a suit in the Court.
Issues: The issues were whether there was a valid submission for arbitration in London and whether the said submission was duly cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid submission to arbitration should be contained in a written document signed by the parties or their agent or agents duly authorised in that behalf, as per Section 4(b) of the Arbitration Act (IV of 1899). It also emphasized that the intention of the parties is crucial in determining the validity and cancellation of a submission.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, enforcing the award made pursuant to a valid submission, and ordered the removal of the award filed in the Court by the defendants.
JUDGMENT
1. This case raises the question whether an agreement to submit differences to arbitration u/s 4 (b) of the Arbitration Act (IV of 1899) must be signed by both parties to the submission, or by their agent or agents duly authorised in that behalf.
2. By Section 4 (b) it is provided that "submission" means "a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not."
3. The question has arisen in this way: On the 30th November 1916 the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants a letter in these terms:
Messrs. Kanoolal and Co. Calcutta.Dear Sirs, Please favour us with information about your firm and indicate the contemplated transactions. We are only open for business on a large scale, and each party acting as principals. We ship the articles specified by you and many others, for example, Copper, Y-Metal, German silver, Aluminium, Building materials, Machinery, Cement, Sugar, etc. Are you interested in any of these? If our selling terms are suitable, please return the formal confirmation. We shall then send the requested quotations and prepare codes and other preliminaries. Yours faithfully, For John Batt (London), Limited. Enclo: Re-terms and confirmation.
4. Enclosed in the letter were the terms upon which the plaintiffs stated that they would transact business with the defendants. After stating that business would only be carried on with the defendants as principals, and setting out various selling conditions relating to the mode of payment, policies, loss caused by mistake, etc, it was provided that
Any disputes must be submitted to arbitration in the usual manner, namely, each party nominates one arbitrator within two months of a written notice; in default of such nomination the other party may nominate a sole arbitrator; the two arbitrators to be merchants residing in London; when two have been nominated they appoint an Umpire; the award states by whom the costs are to be paid.
5. On the 1st January 1917 the defendants replied to the said letter and memorandum in the following terms:
Messrs. John Batt & Co. (London), Limited 39, Old Broad Street, London, E. C. Dear Sirs, We(1)acknowledge your memorandum of conditions, dated 1st January 1915, and accept the same for all transactions between us until others have been substituted by mutual consent. Yours faithfully Kanoolal & Co.
6. On the 1st May 1918, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants:
Dear Sirs, This serves to advise the following enclosures, which speak for themselves: Copies of last mail. Cable translations (none). Invoices as per list (none). O/Report (none). Memo.---Indian produce. Quotations---Steel, Iron, Chemicals. Reports---Steel, Sugar. Textiles---Rules and conditions. Memo.---Sugar conditions. Yours faithfully John Batt & Co. (Loudon), Limited. (Sd.) A. Hoclam, Director.
7. Among the conditions relating to the sale of textiles set out in the memorandum enclosed in the said letter were the following:
Our sales of textile goods c. i. f. Indian conditions are subject to those of the Indian Piece Goods Association, namely, complaints as to quality, finish, colour, design or execution, must be notified within 30 days of arrival. Any claims or disputes must be decided in accordance with the Survey and Arbitration Rules of the Indian Piece Goods Association at the place of destination or Port of Discharge. Failing such Association, the Survey or Arbitration must be referred to the nearest Chamber, of Commerce. The decision of the Arbitrators or Surveyors or of the Umpire shall be final; in all other respects, the Indian Arbitration Act (IX of 1899) shall apply.
