BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LTD Vs. DULICHAND PRATAPMULL
LAWS(CAL)-1953-3-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on March 05,1953

BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
DULICHAND PRATAPMULL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of S.R. Das Gupta J., dated 11/2/1952, by which the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, and refused to stay a suit instituted by the respondent.
(2.) THE facts are as follows: On 8/1/1951, the appellant, Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd., entered into a contract with the respondent, Dulichand Protapmull, for the purchase of 250 bales of jute, each weighing 400 lbs., at Rs. 225/- per bale, the goods to be delivered free at the buyer's Mill Ghat for shipment within one month. THE Sold Note was signed by a firm of brokers, named Jaichandial Dugar. At the relevant time, the Raw Jute (Central Jute Board and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, West Bengal Ordinance No. 17 of 1950, was in force. Section 6 (1) of that Ordinance required any person intending to enter into a contract for the sale of raw jute with the owner of a jute-mill to apply to the Central Jute Board, "specifying the quantity, quality and trade description of such jute and such other particulars in respect thereof, if any, as may be prescribed". Section 6 (2) provided that the Board "shall, after considering the application, select an owner of a jute-mill ......... with whom the seller shall enter into a contract for the sale ......... of raw jute within a date specified by the Board". Under Section 6 (3) (i) the applicant and the selected owner of a jute-mill were to enter into the contract within the date specified by the Board and the contract was to be "on such terms and conditions ......... as may be agreed upon between them, and in the event of there being no such agreement, as may be prescribed". Section 14(1) authorised the State Government generally to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Ordinance and Section 14(2) provided that, in particular, such rules might provide for any of the matters which, under the Ordinance, were "required to be prescribed".
(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14, read with Section 6 (1) of the Ordinance, the State Government prescribed a Form for offers of baled jute which contained at the top a space marked as "Messrs ...............", obviously intended for the name of the offered and a space was marked at the bottom for his signature. The Form contained a number of columns, one of which bore the heading 'Delivery'. The form of contract, prescribed under Section 14, read with Section 6 (3) (i), did not mention the period of delivery and left the relevant space blank. But Rule 12 of the Rules framed under Section 14(1) provided that the "delivery period for all offers accepted by the Board and directed to the mills shall be one month from the date of the offer". The contract form, which was a form for a Sold Note, contained at the top the words, "We have this day sold by your order and for your account to" and at the bottom the words "Seller's Brokers".;


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