BIRLA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LTD Vs. DULICHAND PRATAPMULL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of S.R. Das Gupta J., dated 11/2/1952, by which the learned Judge dismissed the appellant's application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, and refused to stay a suit instituted by the respondent.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: On 8/1/1951, the appellant, Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd., entered into a contract with the respondent, Dulichand Protapmull, for the purchase of 250 bales of jute, each weighing 400 lbs., at Rs. 225/- per bale, the goods to be delivered free at the buyer's Mill Ghat for shipment within one month. THE Sold Note was signed by a firm of brokers, named Jaichandial Dugar.

(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 14, read with Section 6 (1) of the Ordinance, the State Government prescribed a Form for offers of baled jute which contained at the top a space marked as "Messrs ...............", obviously intended for the name of the offered and a space was marked at the bottom for his signature. The Form contained a number of columns, one of which bore the heading 'Delivery'. The form of contract, prescribed under Section 14, read with Section 6 (3) (i), did not mention the period of delivery and left the relevant space blank. But Rule 12 of the Rules framed under Section 14(1) provided that the "delivery period for all offers accepted by the Board and directed to the mills shall be one month from the date of the offer". The contract form, which was a form for a Sold Note, contained at the top the words, "We have this day sold by your order and for your account to" and at the bottom the words "Seller's Brokers".