Gurtu, J. - (1.) ON the 22nd October 1952 the appellant, Ram Autar Agarwala, filed case No. 44 of 1952 in the court of Civil Judge, Bareilly, against the District Co-operative Sugar Cane Supply Society Ltd., opposite party. The case was initiated by means of an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The applicant alleged that he was the payment contractor for gate of H. R. Sugar Factory, Bareilly, and was appointed by the opposite party as a contractor for the year 1950-51. The terms of the contract are summarised in the application as follows : "(a) That the applicant would get commission from the opposite party at Rs. 225/- per lakh maunds on the total weight of 11 1/2 lakh maunds of sugar cane bonded at gate with the aforesaid factory. (b) That the applicant would also get from the opposite party by way of compensation at Rs. 100/-per thousand of the realisation of loans due to the Society from the cane growers. (c) That the applicant was to deposit a cash security of Rs. 2000/- over and above the security of the property to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. The opposite party was to pay interest at Rs. 9/- per annum to the applicant on the above security amount. (d) That the opposite party was liable to pay all cash for the payment to the growers at the gate of the H. R. Sugar Factory. In case it is paid elsewhere the applicant would get all expenses incurred in taking the same to the factory gate. (e) That the applicant was to make payments to the growers of cane on production by them of two purchis, one red and the other black. These purchis were to be issued to the growers by the aforesaid factory and the applicant was to retain red purchis with him in proof of the payment made by him. The black purchis were to be returned to the growers."
(2.) THE original contract, which has been summarised as aforesaid, is on the file of the case. The applicant then alleges in his application that he worked as a payment contractor on behalf of the opposite party from the 6th December 1950 up to the 21st March 1951, and that during the aforesaid period a total amount of Rs. 7667/8/- became due to the applicant. The application then gives a detail of the amount due. The applicant then alleges that at the end of the season the applicant demanded the amount due to him from the opposite party, but its officers who had obtained large amounts from the applicant on the pretext of making payment to the growers but had misappropriated the same instead of making payment to the growers, with a view to forestall the applicant by way of peshbandi, put up entirely a false claim against him.
(3.) IT appears that there was a reference to arbitration in regard to the dispute, as we shall show later, but the applicant's case was that there was no valid legal reference to arbitration and the so called award was not binding and enforceable. By paragraph 5 of the application the applicant alleged that there was absolutely no agreement with the applicant to refer any matter to arbitration and the applicant who was neither a member nor an officer of the opposite party society was not bound by the rules under which the reference purports to have been made. No such agreement for reference to the arbitration could be entered into with the applicant, as he worked only as an independent contractor.;