MEGHRAJ SAMPATLALL Vs. RAGHUNATH AND SON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three points have been taken by Mr. Dutt in support of this appeal. They did not find favour with S. R. Das Gupta, J., and do not commend themselves to us.

(2.) There was a contract entered into between the parties on the 26th of August, 1949, under which the appellant was to sell and the respondents were to buy 150,000 yards of hessian cloth. The respondent's case is that on 20-9-1949, the contract of August was settled by second contract under which they were to sell and the appellant was to buy precisely the same quantity of -hessian cloth. The price fixed under the first contract was Rs. 51-2-0 per 100 yards, but that fixed under the second contract was Rs. 60-8-0 also per 100 yards. On a reference being made to arbitration under a clause which is in the usual form to be found in the Indian jute Mills Association contracts, the arbitrators have made an award computed on the difference between the rates fixed under the two contracts.

(3.) Mr. Dutt's first point before us was that since his client disputed the existence of the second contract altogether, the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to take notice of it or to determine the question of its existence. S. R. Das Gupta, J., held that the shape of the case was not as put forward by Mr. Dutt, but that the respondent's pleading was that the first contract had been settled by the second contract and, therefore the arbitrators had jurisdiction under the arbitration clause contained in the first contract to decide whether the first contract had been settled in the manner alleged, just as they would have jurisdiction to decide if the liabilities under the first contract had been paid off. In my opinion, that view is plainly right and, in fact, Mr. Dutt did not seriously contend to the contrary.