TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD Vs. NALINBHAI B MUNSHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule, under Section 115, of the C. P. C. (5 of 1908), obtained by Texmaco, an abbreviation for Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd., calling upon the opposite party Munshaw to show cause why the order dated March 12, 1968, of a learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore, dismissing Texmaco's application for a declaration that Shri Sasank Majumdar has been validly appointed a new arbitrator under Section 9, Clause (a), of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940, should not be set aside.

(2.) THE facts, which have led up to this rule, need not be referred to further than as follows:-- On April 27, 1962, Texmaco, a leading engineering concern, engaged in the manufacture of cotton spinning machinery, appointed Munshaw its Sale Technical Adviser for textile machinery imported into India from Howa Machinery Ltd. of Japan, by virtue of an agreement dated November 10, 1954, or thereabouts, for technical collaboration between Texmaco and "Howa". An appointment as this of Munshaw is evidenced by an agreement of that day (April 27. 1962), the arbitration clause of which bears:

(3.) NOW, look to the arbitration agreement reproduced above. It does not provide that a reference shall be to two arbitrators. It provides instead that a reference shall be to arbitrators. Necessarily it does not provide either, as indeed it cannot, that, of two arbitrators, one shall be appointed by each party, that is one by Texmaco and another by Munshaw. So, the first two ingredients tabulated above -- and they are basic ingredients upon which depend the remaining three ones -- are found conspicuous by their absence in the arbitration agreement on hand. Hence, as a matter of words, Section 9, Clause (a), does not fit the facts here, and cannot, therefore, be pressed into service.