SE SE OIL Vs. GORAKHRAM GOKALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an arbitration suit, filed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, for filing of an award dated May 22, 1952, made by the Board of Appeal of the London Oil and Tallow Trades Association directing the respondents -defendants to pay 5,600 to the petitioners -plaintiffs and for a decree in terms of that award and interest and costs.

(2.) APART from the further facts to which I will have to refer whilst dealing with the contentions made by the parties the only facts which need be noticed are as follows: - By a contract made in duplicate and dated October 21, 1950, the defendants agreed to sell and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase from the defendants 100 tons of Indian Crude ground -nut oil on the terms and conditions contained in the contract. One of the terms in the contract was that 'all other terms find conditions as per L.O.T.T.A. contract'. The letters 'L.O.T.T.A.' admittedly refer to the London Oil and Tallow Trades Association mentioned above.

(3.) THE plaintiffs' case is that the award is enforceable as mentioned in Section 7(1) of the. Act. The defendants' case is that the award is not enforceable and in that connection the defendants have raised several contentions which may be summarised as follows: (1) The contract between the parties was a forward contract prohibited under the provisions of the Vegetable Oils and Oil -cakes (Forward Contracts Prohibition) Order, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1944 (as continued up to the date of the contract) and accordingly illegal and invalid. , The result according to the defendants is that the arbitration agreement as arising by reason of the provisions of the contract is itself invalid and accordingly the award is not enforceable. (2) That the arbitration suit is barred by the law of limitation. (3) That the defendants had not received due and proper notice of the arbitration proceedings and had no opportunity to present their case. (4) In so far as the Board of Appeal increased the amount of damages from the sum of 2,600 as awarded by umpire J, S. Triggs to 5,600 the same was contrary to law governing the arbitration procedure and accordingly the award is entirely invalid. (5) The award is not final according to the law of England and is, therefore, also not enforceable in India.