GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED Vs. HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-37
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 16,2010

GLOSTER JUTE MILLS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
HOOGHLY MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The prayers are very innocuous. The petitioner being Gloster Jute Mills Ltd. wants reference of the disputes arising out of an agreement dated 24th March, 1988, to an arbitrator to be appointed by the court.
(2.) The agreement was concerned with a Jute mill in Bowreah, Howrah, known as the North Mill. The respondent argues that this mill never vested in the petitioner, as claimed by them. Neither have any rights under the agreement dated 24th March 1988. So, the petitioner is not a party to that agreement. According to the respondent the ownership of the mill remains with Fort Gloster Industries Limited. Presently, its possession is with Bauria Mills Private Limited. In this circumstance, by my order dated 16th August 2010 I directed the petitioner to serve a notice of this application upon the above two companies. None appeared for Fort Gloster. According to the petitioner they never appeared because they have nothing to do with the property any more as they had transferred it to the petitioner. According to the respondent they did not appear because the property had been virtually transferred in their favour. Bauria Mills Private Limited was represented by a learned counsel.
(3.) This application was argued for several days. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to show that the mill had vested in them along with all rights, whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent made an arduous effort to demonstrate that the mill had not vested. FACTS: Now, the facts in some detail. An agreement was signed on 24th March, 1988. The parties were Fort Gloster Industries Limited and the respondent. It was for sale of the North Mill in favour of the respondent. The entire price, except Rs. 1,00,000/-, was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. The respondent took over its possession. There are other detailed provisions in the agreement, which are not important at this stage. However, the formal deed of conveyance was not drawn up. ;


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