S.C.Ghose, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for determination of the existence or validity of 16 several contracts mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petition whereby and whereunder the petitioner agreed to sell to diverse persons various quantities of jute goods described in the said several contracts on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said contracts.
(2.) THE said contracts were non-transferable specific delivery contracts within the meaning of the Forward Contract (Regulations) Act, 1952. Each of the said contracts contained an arbitration clause to the following effect to wit: "15. All disputes between the parties shall be referred to the arbitration of Indian Chamber of Commerce. Calcutta, under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and Courts situated within the area of original side of Calcutta High Court shall have jurisdiction". THE buyers under the said contracts purported to assign the rights under the said contracts in favour of the respondents. THE petitioner failed and neglected to deliver goods under the said contracts notwithstanding application therefor by the buyers and/or the respondents. Thus disputes and differences arose under the said contracts between the parties. The respondents in terms of the arbitration clauses contained in the said contracts referred the said disputes to the arbitration of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, the named arbitrator. Hence the application under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act has been made by the petitioner for the reliefs mentioned above. The petitioner challenges the right of the respondent to refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration on two grounds:-- First, according to the petitioner, the contracts are non-transferable specific delivery contracts within the meaning of Forward Contract (Regulations) Act, 1952. Thus, the rights liabilities under the said contracts, under the express terms of the contracts, could not be transferred to the respondents. Secondly, the petitioner submits that if the said contracts are held to be transferable specific delivery contracts, then, the same were and are void and illegal inasmuch as the said contracts had not been entered into by or between or through any member of a recognised Association. The said contracts also were not on the forms prescribed by any recognised Association and no permission of the Central Government was obtained to enter into the said contracts. Thus the said contracts were entered into in contravention of the provisions of the Forward Contract (Regulations) Act. 1952 and/or the notifications issued thereunder. The same, therefore, were and/are illegal and void.
(3.) THE respondent in paragraphs and and 9 of the affidavit of Jupudy Lakshmi Narasimha Rao affirmed on January 20, 1970, and filed in opposition to the petition herein has admitted that all the said contracts were non-transferable specific delivery contracts for jute goods. THE respondents, however, has denied in the said affidavit that the said contracts were and are illegal or void.;