T. V. R. Tatachari, V. S. Deshpande

( 1 ) [appellant carried on forward transactions in stock and shares through respondent No. 1 who was a member of Delhi Stock Exchange Association. Contract note between them contained arbitration clause that disputes would be settled a :cording to Rules of the Association. Respondent No. 1 appointed his arbitrator and on appellant s, failure, President of Association appointed his Arbitrator. Appellant challenged the award given by them as unilateral. Single Judge held against the appellant and he filed appeal against the same. The D. B. observed that definitions of agreement and reference in S. 2 (2) and (e) of the Act of 1940 are not without significance Para 9 onwards the judgement is ;

( 2 ) IT is to be noted, however, that the definition of arbitration agreement" in the Act of 1949 is precisely the same as the definition of "submission" in the Act of 1899. How is it then that the definition of "arbitration agreement" in the Act of 940 is the same despite the insertion of the new definition of "reference" in the Act of 1940 ? The reason appears to be this ; The definition of "arbitration agreement" is comprehensive enough to include two

Click Here to Read the rest of this document