BANSILAL Vs. SWADESHI MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are concerned in this appeal principally with the interpretation of rules framed by the Millowners' Association, Bombay, called the "Rules for Arbitration on Indian Piecegoods and Yarn."

(2.) THE appellants (original petitioners) are a registered partnership firm trading in piecegoods in Bombay. THE 1st respondents manufacture piece-goods and the 2nd respondents are their selling agents. THE appellants used to place indents for the purchase of piecegoods of the 1st respondents' manufacture. THE 1st respondents accepted such indents and delivered piece-goods under invoices. Upon receipt of the invoices the appellants took delivery and executed hundis for the price thereof. THE contracts between the parties were in a form approved by Millowners' Association. THEy contained an arbitration clause which required the reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration under the aforessid Rules.

(3.) IN respect of the counter-claim, it was agreed that separate proceedings would be taken. Consequently, an arbitration case was filed by the appellants on 9th October, 1974. It covered 55 indents between the period May, 1968 and January, 1971. The period for delivery under each of the contracts was 3 months or thereabouts. Arbitrators were appointed by the parties. An Umpire was appointed by the arbitrators before proceeding with the reference. The 1st respondents contended before the arbitrators that the appellants' claim was barred by the law of limitation. The arbitrators felt that the contention required expert opinion and it was sought from senior counsel. After receipt of the opinion the arbitrators held a conference with counsel. Thereafter, being unable to agree upon the contention in regard to limitation they made separate and differing awares. Consequent upon their disagreement, the Umpire was called upon to enter upon the reference and the parties were so informed. The Umpire, without fixing a time and place for hearing the parties, gave an award on 5th January, 1977 holding that the appellants' claim was barred by limitation.