Bijayesh Mukherji, J. - (1.) THE unsuccessful appellant craves a certificate under Article 133, sub-article (1) of the Constitution for appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2.) THE appellant's is a suit, alleging breaches of contracts, one of which is written and the rest are parol, and claiming recovery of Rs. 4,25,343.00. A.N. Ray, J., stays the suit and all proceedings thereunder, because of the written contract's arbitration clause which bears: "Any mutual dispute should be settled in mutual agreement; however, both the contracting parties accept the jurisdiction of the Arbitration by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris with application of Yugoslav materials and economical law." THE learned Judge dismisses too the appellant's application for injunction restraining the respondent from withdrawing from the Bihar State Electricity Board any money, without keeping a balance of Rs. 4,40,000. THE appeals taken against the aforesaid two orders fail. Hence this application for the grant of a certificate, after consolidating the two appeals which have so failed. The decision of the Court of appeal, presided over by G.K. Mitter, J., (then here) and myself, has since come into the reports: Ramji Dayawahla and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Messrs. Invest Import, (1965) 70 Cal WN 199, making it unnecessary to go over the facts again. It must, however, be mentioned that when the petition for a certificate reaches the stage of hearing, G.K. Mitter, J., is not in this Court, with the result that the Chief Justice assigns the matter to my learned brother and myself. And we hear it.
(3.) NO doubt, the iudgment is a judgment of affirmance. But I am satisfied that the appeal does involve substantial questions of law. That apart, the whole of materials, we have had put before us, completely satisfy me too "that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court", within the meaning of Clause (c), sub-article (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution. I proceed to state why I am satisfied so.;