BHOWANI COTTON MILLS Vs. UNION TEXTILE TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR questions have been canvassed on the notice of motion. First, that the arbitration agreement is vague. Secondly, that the rules of Indian Chamber of Commerce are illegal. Thirdly, that the Registrar, Tribunal of Arbitration, Indian Chamber of Commerce failed to exercise his discretion. FOURthly, that the arbitrators are guilty of misconduct.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent had dealings and transactions whereby the respondent sold and the petitioner bought certain quantities of Cone yarn. THE contract contained inter alia the following provisions:

(3.) THE other contention on behalf of the petitioner was that it appeared from a Clause of the agreement that the Courts at Calcutta would have jurisdiction, that it was open to the parties to come to a Court of law and therefore the agreement as to arbitration was vague. Settlement of dispute through the medium of arbitration and through recourse to Court of law are two different aspects. It may be that the parties envisaged disputes which are not covered by the arbitration Clause and in such a case the parties might have recourse to a Court of law. That is why the parties stipulated that the Courts at Calcutta would have jurisdiction. I am unable to find any inconsistency between the provisions or to hold that there is any vagueness or uncertainty or that the Clause providing for resort to Courts of law in Calcutta nullifies the arbitration agreement. Further, counsel for the respondent rightly contended that in a document of this nature if there was any inconsistency the earlier Clause would prevail unlike in a Will where the later Clause would prevail. I make it quite clear that I do not hold that there is any inconsistency.