VALLABH PITTE Vs. NARSINGDAS GOVINDRAM KALANI
LAWS(BOM)-1962-9-23
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 04,1962

SHRI VALLABH PITTE Appellant
VERSUS
NARSINGDAS GOVINDRAM KALANI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRIVY COUNCIL IN FALKINGHAM V. VICTORIAN RAILWAYS COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
JUNGHEIM,HOPKINS AND CO. V. FUOKELMANN [REFERRED TO]
HEYMAN V. DARWINS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
OIL PRODUCTS TRADING CO.,LTD. V. SOCIETE ANONYMA SOCIETE DE GESTON D'ENTERPRISES COLONIALES [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTOPHER BROWN LT. V. GENOSSENSCHAFT OESTERRIELCHISCHER WALDBESITZER HOLZWIRT SCHAFTSBETRIEBE REGISTERRIETRE GENOSSENSCHAFT MIT BESCHRANKTER HAFTUNG [REFERRED TO]
REX V. FULHAM,HAMMERSMITH AND KENSINGTON RENT TRIBUNAL EX PARTE ZEREK [REFERRED TO]
SHRIRAM HANUTRAM V. MOHANLAL AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
DHANRAJAMAL GOBINDRAM VS. SHAMJI KALIDAS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL BARMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DINASARI LTD VS. HUSSAIN ALI AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
M GULAMALI ABDULHUSSEIN AND CO VS. VISHWAMBHARLAL RUIYA [REFERRED TO]
GHELABHAI MAHASUKHRAM ROY VS. KESHAVDEV MADANLAL NEMANI [REFERRED TO]
LEWIS W FERNANDEZ VS. JIVATLAL PARTAPSHI [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED HAJIHAMED VS. PIROJSHAW RVAKHARIA AND CO [REFERRED TO]
E. D. SASSOON AND COMPANY VS. RAMDUTT RAMKISSEN DAS [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

FAIRCOT S A A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM VS. TATA SSL LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1999-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHEER BIN SALEH VS. MOHAN AND MOHAN FINANCERS [LAWS(APH)-1998-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
CORN PRODUCTS COMPANY INDIA LIMITED VS. AYAZ GHADIYA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
KEVAL KRISHNA BALAKRAM HITKARI VS. ANIL KEVAL HITKARI [LAWS(BOM)-1999-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD VS. MESSERS HUKUM CHAND STONE AND LIME CO [LAWS(MPH)-1985-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJANLAL RATAN KUMAR VS. KALURAM MAHADEO PROSAD [LAWS(CAL)-1972-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
P C AGGARWAL VS. BANWARI LAL KOTTYA [LAWS(DLH)-1971-11-8] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA FINANCIERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GURCHARAN SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1972-1-23] [REFERRED]
CHIEF ENGINEER TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS TIRUPATHI VS. K SUBBARAYUDU [LAWS(APH)-1988-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD VS. HUKUM CHAND STONE AND LIME CO KATNI [LAWS(MPH)-1985-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
FOODS FATS and FERTILISERS LTD VS. RAMKISHANDAS RADHAKISHAN [LAWS(MPH)-1985-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIPRASAD KHANDELWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1967-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
S ZEENATH BEEVI VS. N V K MOHAMED SULTAN ROWTHER [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
KUNNUL NOORUDIN VS. JAYABHARAT CREDIT AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1983-11-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Patel, J. - (1.)THIS appeal raises the much vexed question as to the validity of an award given in a case by arbitrators where the jurisdiction of the arbitrators is challenged. The short facts are as follows; The appellant is a firm carrying on business at the Cotton Exchange Building, Kalbadevi Road, Bombay. The firm is a member of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. Kalani and Co., a firm of which the respondent was a partner employed the appellants in about 1954 to act as their agents to effect transactions in cotton in accordance with the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. Neither the respondent-firm nor any of its partners were members of the Association. A large number of transactions were carried through at their request by the appellants. For transactions prior to 13th May 1955 there was no dispute between the parties, but the dispute related to transactions effected after that date. As the Respondent refused to honour his obligations which arose as a result of the alleged transactions, the machinery of the East India Cotton Association for arbitration was sought to be put into motion by the appellant. On the 19th of August 1955, the appellant appointed an arbitrator and it called upon the respondent to do likewise. As the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, the Chairman of the Association as required by the rules of arbitration, appointed an arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. The respondent denied that he had entered into any contract with the appellant and, therefore, denied the arbitration agreement itself. As soon as the Association appointed the arbitrators, and the arbitrators gave notice to the respondent, the respondent tiled a petition in the City Civil Court on the 25th November 1955 being petition No. 208 of 1955 for a declaration that there was no valid arbitration agreement and, therefore, the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make any award. During the pendency of this application, the arbitrators, did not complete the arbitrations. When the petition came up for hearing on 24th April 1957, the respondent remained absent as a consequence of which it came to be dismissed for default.
(2.)AFTER this the appellant again moved the Association for arbitration. Two arbitrators were appointed as required by the rules and notices were given to both the parties to appear before them. The respondent failed to appear. AFTER hearing, the arbitrators made an award on the 11th of January 1958 awarding a sum of Rs. 20,000/-to the appellant. This award was filed in Court by the arbitrators. On notice being served, the respondent filed the petition for setting aside the award under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
In the petition, the respondent said that in 1954, the petitioner and one Ramgopal were partners and were carrying on business under the name of Kalani and Co. The said firm employed the respondent as their agents to effect transactions according to the instructions of Messrs. Kalani and Co. in cotton in accordance writh the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. for different Vaidas. By paragraph 4, the application said that on 13th May 1955 there was an outstanding transaction of sale of 500 bales of cotton for August 1955 Vaida. In paragraph 8, the respondent said that all the transactions mentioned in Exh. E were not his transactions; he never gave instructions therefor, he all along denied and denies the very factum and existence of the said alleged transactions between him and the appellant, the foundation of the contention being his denial of each and every contract after the 13th May 1955. Some other allegations were also made including those of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators.

(3.)THE appellant contested this petition affirmatively alleging that the contract had in fact taken place, that proper notices were given and there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. It also contended that the dismissal of the earlier petition No. 208 of 1955, was a bar under Order 9 Rule 9 to the present petition for setting aside the award, and in any case the respondent had waived his contention that there was no agreement.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.