CHATURBHUJ SOHANLAL Vs. CLIVE MILLS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order made by Mitter, J., dated 1st May, 1961 whereby he dismissed an application made on behalf of the respondent, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for setting aside a decree made in terms of an award made in Case No. 249 of 1949 of the Tribunal of Arbitration, Bengal Chamber of Commerce. The facts are briefly as follows: The appellant before us, the petitioner in the said application, is a partnership firm, of which the partners are Sohanlal Ruia and Iswari Prosad Ruia. By a contract in writing No. 46/A dated 29th March 1946 entered into between the appellant firm and the respondent company, Messrs. Clive Mills, Co. Ltd. the appellant sold and the respondent bought, 2000 mda of jute on terms and conditions mentioned in the said contract, which was in the prevailing contract form of the Indian Jute Mills Association. The said contract contained the usual arbitration clause whereby all disputes and differences were to be referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, according to the rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration for the time being in force. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties in respect of the said contract, the same were referred to the arbitration of the Tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, in terms of the said arbitration clause and was numbered as Case No. 485 of 1947. In accordance with the rules of the said Tribunal, the Registrar constituted a court to adjudicate upon the dispute. Notice of the fact was given to the appellant and it was asked to file its statement. On account of certain proceedings had in this Court, the arbitration could not be proceeded with before July, 1949. On the 2Ist July, 1949 the Tribunal made an award against the appellant and in favour of the respondent, for a sum of Rs. 36,500/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and costs. On the 23rd February, 1950 a notice under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act") was issued from this Court; Section 14 (2) provides that the arbitrators shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement, cause the award or a signed copy of it together with any deposition or document which may have been taken and proved before the arbitrators, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The said 'Act does rot prescribe the manner in which the service of notice under Section 14(2) is to be effected. Section 44 of the said Act gives the High Court the power to make rules consistent with the said Act as to the filing of awards and all proceedings consequent thereon and incidental thereto. Rules have been framed by the High Court in exercise of such flower. Under Rule 14, where the provisions of Rule 13 are complied with by the arbitrators, the Registrar is required to file the award and to issue notice thereof to the parties under Section 14(2) of the said Act intimating to them that the Court will proceed to pronounce judgment thereon on a date to be fixed in the notice. The notice is in a prescribed form, being Form No. 6, and it is to be served by such party or parties as the Registrar may direct Rule 15 prescribes that such a notice has to be served not less than eight clear days before the returnable date, in the manner provided for service of notice in Chapter VIII, so far as the same may be applicable. Rule 26 of Chapter VIII lays down that

(2.) ON the 6th March, 1950 the notice is stated to have been served on the appellant and this appears from a joint affidavit of service affirmed on the 31st March, 1950 which has been filed in Court It will be necessary to refer to this affidavit in greater detail presently. ON the 17th April, 1950 a decree was passed upon the award. Besides the decree made in this case, the respondent obtained three other decrees against the appellant in Award Cases Nos. 248 of 1949, 277 of 1949 and 278 of 1949. In November 1955 the respondent made two applications for execution of two of these decrees by arrest and detention of Sohanlal Ruia, one of the partners, in civil prison. ON or about the 28th January, 1956 an application was made on behalf of "Chaturbhuj Sohanlal" by Sohanlal Ruia, describing himself as a Karta and/or a partner. In the application, the relief asked for was that four decrees passed in award cases of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, including the decree that was passed herein on the 17th April, 1950 should be set aside. The allegation in the petition was that Sohanlal Ruia was a Karta of a Hindu joint family and that several contracts were entered into with the respondent company by the said joint family. The petition proceeded to state that disputes arose under the said contracts and were referred to the arbitration of the said Tribunal and four awards were made and filed in Court and decrees were passed on the said awards. It was then stated that the award should be set aside because "no valid notice under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act was issued in all the four cases". In order to appreciate why no valid notice was said to have been served the following grounds set out in the petition may be noted.

(3.) IN the body of the petition nothing was said as to how the petitioner came to know of the decree. IN the affidavit in opposition, it was stated on behalf of the respondent that notice under Section 14(2) of the said Act had been validly issued and served upon Sohanlal Ruia who duly accepted the same but refused to sign in acknowledgment thereof. Reference was made to a joint affidavit of service affirmed by Ratanlal Saraf and Profulla Ranjan Pal affirmed on the 31st March, 195O and filed in Court. This allegation had been dealt with in the affidavit in reply affirmed by Sohanlal Ruia and Iswari Prosad Ruia on the 18th day of May, 1957. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 7 which runs as follows: