An agreement for arbitration is essential for the jurisdiction of arbitrators, and the implied authority of a partner to bind the firm does not extend to submitting disputes to arbitration.

ORDER:- The revision petition is by M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills, Rajapalayam, against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in O. P. 82 of 1973. The petitioners, M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills, filed the O. P. under Sections 31 to 33 of the Arbitration Act, praying to declare that there is no valid arbitration agreement in respect of the contract form dated 16-10-1970, and for an injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3, the arbitrators, from proceeding with the enquiry and making any award in the proceedings pending before them.

2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:- Under Ex. A-1, the petitioners, M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills, and the first respondent, M/s. Indo Burmah Trading Corporation, Madras, entered into a contract on 16-10-1970. A clause in the contract provides that dispute, if any, shall be settled only in the Courts in the jurisdiction of the sellers. There is another clause which provides all the incentives both that of the manufacturer's as well as the Exporters' both the current and future including the distance premium to the buyer's account. The form Ex. A-1 was signed by the petitioners, M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills and sent to the first respondent, M/s. Indo Burmah Trading Corporation. The first respondent, while signing the agreement, added Ex. A-2 in rubber stamp, which reads as follows-

"Notwithstanding anything contained herein in contravention of the provisions, rules, regulations and conditions as applied/adopted in Standard Contract form No.2, and as accepted by the Cotton Textile Export Promotion Council this contract is subject to the said standard contract form No. 2 and its terms and conditions."

It is not in dispute that in the Standard Contract form No. 2, which regulates the rights of parties, a clause as to arbitration is provided for. The question is whether this clause has been accepted by both the parties and has come into effect. Ex. A-3 is a letter sent by the first respondent to the petitioner on 6-11-1970. In that letter, the first respondent stated-

"The duplicate of your said contract is returned to you herewith duly signed by us."

In the contract form thus returned, after acceptance, Ex. A-2 in rubber stamp was put in. Now, the question is whether this condition in the rubber stamp was accepted by the petitioners. The petitioners, case is that under Ex. A-4, dated 9-11-1970, while acknowledging the receipt of the letter of the first respondent, they specifically stated that the contract was subject to the terms and conditions in the agreement signed, and not according to the Form No. 2. Along with that, a certificate of posting Ex. A-5 was also produced before the Court. There is some dispute as to whether this letter was in fact received by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this letter was marked by consent whereas according to the first respondent it was never received by them. The lower Court has given a finding that this letter was not received by the first respondent. I do not see any reason for allowing the petitioners to question this finding.

3. Subsequently, there was some misunderstanding between the parties and the contract was not fully performed. The first respondent took steps for referring the matter to the Arbitrators. Ex. B-1, the notification of the appointment of the Arbitrators, was sent to the petitioners, and one of the partners of the petitioners, firm agreed to the appointment of the arbitrators to settle the disputes between the parties. This was signed on behalf of M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills by one of the partners. After taking two adjournments to enable them to file a written statement, the petitioners filed the written statement Ex. A-13 on 9-7-1973. At the outset, in the written statement, the petitioners M/s. Alagappa Cotton Mills submitted that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the claims