Salil K.Roy Choudhary, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit.
(2.) THE material facts which, are not in serious controversy are as follows that by a contract dated the 9th July, 1968 the respondent agreed to sell and the petitioner agreed to buy certain quantities of raw jutes at agreed rates on the terms and conditions contained in the said contract. It appears that the said contract is governed by the Forward Contract Regulation Act, 1952 and the rules and bye-laws of the East India Hessian Exchange Ltd. regarding transferable specific delivery contract for raw jutes. THE relevant bye-laws are in Chapter V of the Working Manual, Vol. III of the East India Hessian Exchange Ltd. l(b), 1(c), 2, 12(a) 15 and 17. It appears that there were various notifications by the East India Hessian Exchange Ltd. under the Forward Contract Regulation Act and the bye-laws relating to the transferable specific delivery contracts for raw jute prescribing the requirements for serial numbered contract forms, registration of the said contracts and also the period within which the contract is to be entered into etc. Some of them are annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent affirmed by one Pannalal Sethi on 10th July, 1969 in this application. Disputes arose out of the said contract and the petitioner referred the disputes to Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Tribunal of arbitration on or about March 9, 1969 and the said Tribunal of arbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry duly constituted a Court and entered upon the reference as it would appear from the letter dated 20th March, 1969 a copy of which was served on the respondent. THEreafter the respondent through his Solicitor took several adjournments before the Tribunal of arbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry and ultimately served a notice under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act dated the 4th April, 1960 after filing a suit in this Court being suit No. 1140 of 1969 (Cal), (Hiralal Pannalal v. W. F. Ducat and Co. Pvt. Ltd.). In the said plaint the respondent alleged the said contract to be a purported contract and in paragraphs 1 to 7, it is alleged that due to breach of the respondent and also due to the act of fraud, the contract was cancelled and thereafter in paragraphs 8 to 26, it is alleged that the said contract was void and illegal for non-compliance of the statutory provisions under the Forward Contract Regulation Act, 1952 and the rules and bye-laws relating to transferable specific delivery contract in raw jute as made by East India Hessian Exchange Ltd., rules and bye-laws and also various notifications mentioned therein. In short, the allegations are, mainly, that the contract was not in the prescribed form under the relevant rules and bye-laws of the East India Hessian Exchange Ltd. which has the statutory force and the same was not serially numbered as required by the notification made under the said Act and bye-laws and it was not registered. Thereafter, the validity of the contract is specifically challenged pleading non-compliance of the statutory provisions of the said Forward Contract Regulation Act and the rules and bye-laws relating to transferable specific delivery contracts in raw jute.
(3.) AFTER the suit was filed the petitioner has made this application for stay of the suit on the 6th June, 1969 and thereafter strangely enough after directions were given for filing affidavit the matter appeared in the list and was adjourned and kept pending nearly for the last six years. I am told that the matter was once part-heard before B.C. Mitra, J. (as he then was) and thereafter it was released but the fact remains that the petitioner never took serious diligent step for getting the matter heard and in fact the respondent mentioned it before me and brought the matter in the list for ultimate disposal.;