- (1.) THIS is an application for the extension of time for making of an award by an umpire. The facts are not in dispute. The applicant Britania Building and Iron Co. Ltd., entered into an agreement with the respondent Gobinda Chandra Bhattacharjee on January 22, 1954 by which the parties agreed to carry on business in co-partnership under certain terms and conditions. The agreement was executed at Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. It contained the following arbitration clauses :- "All disputes which shall arise between the parties and whether during or after determination of this agreement in relation to any matter whatsoever arising out of this agreement shall be referred to arbitration of a single arbitrator if agreed upon or two arbitrators due to be appointed by the party hereto of the first part and the other by the party hereto of the second part in the latter case the arbitrators before proceeding shall appoint an umpire. The proceedings of the arbitration shall be in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act I of 1899 or any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force."
(2.) DISPUTE and differences arose between the parties and the applicant filed a suit in this court against the respondent on June 25, 1957. The respondent made an application for stay of the suit under the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. In the petition filed in this case the respondent stated that he had already appointed an arbitrator while the applicant had not appointed its arbitrator. By an order made on September 24, 1954, the suit was stayed. On the same day the applicant appointed his arbitrator. On September 18, 1957 the respondent made an application before the Subordinate Judge of Gauhati under section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act for filing the arbitration agreement and for appointment of an arbitrator: the said application is still pending. The respondent also applied to the Gauhati Court for an injunction restraining the applicant from receiving and collecting certain payments. An objection was taken by the applicant that the Gauhati Court had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. This was overruled by the Subordinate Judge of Gauhati who dismissed the application of the respondent on its merits but came to the conclusion that the court at Gauhati alone had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The arbitrators appointed by the parties did not meet, nor did they appoint an umpire. The applicant made an application to this court for the appointment of an umpire, the respondent took the plea that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. On June 16, 1958 Ray, J. made an order appointing Mr. D. R. Das, deceased, as an umpire. Mr. Das held a meeting of the umpire and gave directions for filing of the statement and counter statement of facts but before he could hold an effective meeting Mr. Das died on August 14, 1958 On August 25, the applicant made an application to this court for appointment of another umpire in place of Mr. D. R. Das, deceased. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the respondent. On September 4, 1958, Ray, J, made an order appointing Mr. B. Das, Barrister-at-Law, as an umpire, without any protest as to the jurisdiction of this court on the part of the respondent. Mr. Das held a meeting on September 18, 1958 and gave certain directions to the parties but the time to file his award expired on January 4, 1959 before the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
(3.) THE present application was moved on Master's summons dated February 11, 1959, the main prayer being that the time for making an award should be extended up to June 13, 1959. It does not appear that it suited the parties to move the application before May 27, and the only point taken by the respondent is that this court has no jurisdiction in the matter and ought not to deal with the arbitration agreement between the parties or make any order thereunder.;