PENUKONDA RATHAKRISHNAMURTHY Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAAND CO. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Kunhi Raman, J., on the Original Side in two petitions filed under the Arbitration Act, one to make the award a decree of the Court and the other to set it aside on the ground that the arbitrators had wrongly decided a point of law regarding limitation in holding that the claim of the appellant, P. Rathakrishnamurthy, was in time.

(2.) THE facts are these : The appellant and Balasubramania & Co. (the first respondent) are both yarn merchants and members of the Madras Yarn Merchants' Association. They have admittedly subjected themselves as members to a set of arbitration bye -laws which have laid down a rather elaborate procedure for the reference of disputes arising between the members out of forward and other contracts to arbitration. Rule 4(a) of the Arbitration bye -laws is as follows:

(3.) IT is common ground that under the provisions of Rule 5 the appellant filed a plaint in the office of the Secretary of the Association on 29th March, 1945, claiming Rs. 13,052 -4 -0 as damages from Balasubramania & Co., and nominated Sri T.N.K. Govindarajulu Chetty, the second respondent, as his arbitrator. It is also common ground that under Rule 7 notice was issued by the Secretary on 31st March, 1945, to the known address of Balasubramania & Co., as recorded in the association office. It was re -directed by the postal authorities and received only by the first respondent on 3rd April, 1945. He refused to nominate an arbitrator and filed O.P. No. 202 of 1945 in the High Court challenging the validity of the arbitration reference. He, however, subsequently withdrew this by consent and then nominated his own arbitrator, Beechar Bhai, the third respondent. The arbitrators passed an unanimous award giving the appellant a decree for Rs. 9,682 -8 -0 overruling a request by the first respondent to refer the point of limitation to the Court under Section 13(b) of the Arbitration Act. It is also common ground that the date of breach of the alleged contract was 31st March, 1942. The arbitrators held that as the appellant had invoked arbitration under Rule 5 by filing a plaint in the association office on 29th March, 1945, his claim was in time. A brief finding on this point in their award is as follows: