RAIPADA PRAMANIK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff appellant is directed against the judgment and order passed in Title Suit No. 62 of 1966 and it arises out of a proceeding for passing a decree in terms of the award made by the Arbitrator and filed by him in Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant Raipada Pramanik was appointed a clearing and storing agent for C. I. Sheet, B. R. K. Coal and other relief materials for the area under the Subdivisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Krishnagar on the basis of a written agreement executed on 22nd of February, 1967 by him and the Subdivisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Krishnagar, Nadia on behalf of the Governor, State of West Bengal. In the said agreement it was stipulated that the petitioner will store the relief materials in his godown for which he will be paid commission at a certain rate mentioned therein. In Clause 21 of the said agreement it has been provided that either of the parties shall be at liberty to terminate the said agreement on giving one month's notice in writing of his intention to so terminate the agreement. In Clause 23 of the said agreement it has also been provided that in the case of difference or dispute arising under the agreement the same shall be referred to two Arbitrators one to be nominated by the Government and other by the agent that is the plaintiff and an umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators in writing before proceeding with the reference and the decision of the Arbitrators or the umpire as the case may be shall be final and conclusive and the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and rules framed thereunder shall be deemed to apply to this contract. THE State of West Bengal, the defendant neglected to pay the bills submitted by the plaintiff on account of the storage charges amounting to Rs. 52,108.13 paise in spite of repeated reminders. THE plaintiff finding no other alternative had to appoint Sree Somnath Chatterji, Barrister-at-law, as his arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 of the said agreement and sent a notice dated 8th of January, 1962 to the Secretary, to the Government of West Bengal, Food and Supplies Department, District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Krishnagar, Nadia to nominate its arbitrator to settle the above deputes and differences which have arisen between them within 15 days after the service of the said notice. But in spite of the receipt of the said notice the defendant, that is, the State of West Bengal did not take any steps to nominate their arbitrator. As such in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Arbitration Act, the plaintiff appointed Sri Somnath Chatterji, Bar-at-law as the sole arbitrator for decision of the said dispute. THE arbitrator served several notices upon the parties to the dispute and held several meetings. On 11th of August, 1962, the arbitrator made an award for a sum of Rs. 51 398.62 paise in full and final settlement of the dues of the plaintiff against the defendant under the said agreement and after due publication the said award was signed and sealed by the Arbitrator. THE Arbitrator then filed this award in Court in compliance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act. THE petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act praying for passing a decree in terms of the said award. This was numbered as Title Suit No. 62 of 1966. THE District Magistrate, Nadia, filed a written objection against the said award contending inter alia that the alleged agreement was not legally valid and binding upon the State of West Bengal as the same was not executed in the manner provided under Article 299 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as Sri Narendranath Sarkar, the then Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies had no authority to enter into such a contract. THE appointment of arbitrator by the petitioner was illegal as the same was not in accordance with the Clause 23 of the agreement and the alleged award filed by the arbitrator was a nullity. It was also contended that there was no difference or dispute regarding the claim between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such there had been no occasion for appointment of any arbitrator and the appointment of the sole arbitrator by the petitioner and award made by the sole arbitrator was without jurisdiction and so the same was liable to be set aside.

(3.) ON April 19, 1967, the Additional Subordinate Judge, Nadia held that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Krishnagar, Nadia had no (sic) authority to enter into any contract on behalf of the Government in respect of relief materials. It was also held that from the printed form of agreement it was clear that the Sub-Divisional Controller had no authority. The agreement (Exhibit 3) was thus unauthorised and as such it could not bind the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff was not ever paid in pursuance of the said agreement and the payment made, if any, could not be said to have been made with the sanction of the Government. It was therefore held that the agreement (Exhibit 3) was not legal and valid and as such the suit at the instance of the plaintiff was held not maintainable. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. It is against this judgment and order this appeal has been filed.