SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The story may be narrated first and the legal context later. The sheer quality of the story demands this extraordinary treatment of the facts de hors the legal premise against which it has to be seen.
(2.) The appellant entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India in June, 1975 for, in effect, letting out his godown having nearly 73,000 sq. ft space for storage of foodgrain up to 12,000 MT at a time. The agreement was in the nature of an agency under which the appellant was to handle and receive only such consignments and bags of foodgrain as were to be allotted by FCI. As on October 10, 1988, only about 1900 MT of foodgrain remained at such Shibpur godown and the vast area of the godown remained unutilised. The agreement provided for the appellant to be paid on the basis of the quantity of the goods stored. The agreement also precluded the godown being let out to any other or the appellant storing any goods other than the FCI's therein. For a substantial period between October, 1988 and November, 1991 fresh stocks of foodgrain were not sent for storage at the Shibpur godown. By a letter dated November 2, 1991, the appellant terminated the agreement by giving two months' notice. Thus, the agreement stood determined with effect from January 2, 1992.
(3.) Prior to the termination of the agreement, the appellant had invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement and referred several claims to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed in February, 1990 and in course of the reference before such arbitrator additional claims were filed by amending the original statement of claim such that the claims of the appellant till May 31, 1997 formed the subject-matter of such initial arbitral reference.;