GHEWARCHAND DANCHAND Vs. BANWARILAL GARODIA
LAWS(CAL)-1951-2-43
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 08,1951

Ghewarchand Danchand Appellant
VERSUS
Banwarilal Garodia Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALA BUX AGARWALA V. LACHMINARAIN (SIC) MANUFACTURING COMPANY,LTD. [REFERRED]
<RC>ILR(CAL) 1952 1 354;LAWSUIT(CAL) 1951 0 336;</RC> HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA <JGN>S. R. DAS GUPTA</JGN> GHEWARCHAND DANCHAND BANWARILAL GARODIA <AT> </AT> 08.02.1951 <SUBJECT>ARBITRATION</SUBJECT><SI> </SI> <FV></FV> <ADV>A. K. SEN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application on behalf of Ghewarchand Danchand for a declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties under which the claim of the Respondents for refund of the sum of Rs. 4,125 can be referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of (sic) an order that the arbitration agreement contained in (sic) No. 2599, dated August 8, 1949, has ceased to exist and (sic) determination of the effect of the arbitration agreement (sic) in the said contract and for other incidental reliefs.
(2.)The Petitioner's case before me is as follows:
(3.)On August 8, 1949, the Petitioner entered into a contract with (sic) Respondent, whereby the Respondent sold and/or agreed to (sic) 300,000 yards of hessian cloth on terms and conditions (sic) in contract No. 2599, dated August 8, 1949. The (sic) contract contained an arbitration clause. Under the said (sic) delivery was to be given at the rate of 100,000 yards (sic) month from October to December, 1949. The Respondent (sic) and neglected to deliver any quantity in respect of the (sic) portion of the said contract. On October 26, 1949, the (sic) Trades Association issued a circular to its members for (sic) guidance, saying that the sellers, who had failed to fulfil (sic) contractual obligations in delivering goods to the buyers, (sic) pay differences to the buyers measured by the difference (sic) the contract price and the maximum mill price obtained the time plus a penalty of (sic) per cent, which was the rough (sic) of the profits which the buyers could have made, had (sic) received the goods. The maximum ex-mill price of the (sic) hessian at the end of October was Rs. 55 per 100 bags, fie Petitioner, thereafter, sent a bill of difference to the (sic) for Rs. 11,000 for the October portion of the said (sic) which was the difference between the contract price and (sic) maximum ex-mill price of the said goods at the end of (sic) 1949, together with (sic) per cent, penalty. The Petitioner at the bill at the request of the Respondent, who represented to (sic) Petitioner that it could not deliver the October portion of the (sic) goods and would pay the aforesaid difference. It is the (sic) of the Petitioner before me that, on November 1, 1949, it (sic) agreed by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent (sic) the Petitioner would give up its claim for the (sic) goods (sic) would accept the said sum of Rs. 11,000 in full settlement (sic) its claim for the October portion of the goods under the said (sic). Pursuant to the said agreement, the Petitioner sent (sic) said bill which the Respondent accepted and paid for. In (sic) circumstances the Petitioner contends that there is no dispute (sic) difference between the parties in respect of or arising out of (sic) said contract No. 2599 as the Petitioner and the Respondent (sic) mutually agreed amongst themselves as to the quantum of (sic) payable by the Respondent to the Petitioner, i.e. the (sic) sum of Rs. 11,000 which the Respondent paid and the (sic) accepted. In other words, the contract No. 2599 was (sic) discharged. Notwithstanding the said settlement (sic) the payment as aforesaid, the Respondent has purported to submit a claim before the Bengal Chamber of Commerce (sic) refund of the sum of Us. 4,125 which was paid as penalty (sic) non-delivery of the October portion of the said goods. (sic) Petitioner contends that the said submission to the arbitration the Bengal Chamber of Commerce is wrong and that the (sic) which the Respondent is now making for refund of the said (sic) of Its. 4,125, is not a claim or dispute arising out of the (sic) contract and the arbitration agreement contained in the (sic) contract. In the circumstances the Petitioner has made (sic) present application for the reliefs claimed therein.


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