REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ALLIANCE JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. Appellant

V/S

LALCHAND DHARAMCHAND Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TURNOCK V. SARTORIS [REFERRED TO]
MONROE V. BOGNOR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
BALABUX AGARWALA V. LUCHMINARAIN JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LTD. [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHI RAM BANARASI DAS V. HANUTMAL [REFERRED TO]
WOOLF V. COLLIS REMOVAL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
WOOLF V. COLLIS REMOVAL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
JOHURMULL PARASRAM V. LOUIS DREYFUS AND CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM CHAND SALIGRAM V. JEWA MAMOOJI [REFERRED TO]
KHUSIRAM BENARASHILAL V. KIAN GWAN CO. (CAL) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS DWARKADAS V. ORIENT PICTURES [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL CO. LTD. V. BENGAL BOATING CO. [REFERRED TO]
ASTRO VENCEDOR V. MABANAFT G M B H [REFERRED TO]
GAYA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
ANDERSON WRIGHT LIMITED VS. MORAN AND CO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KISHORILAL GUPTA AND BROS [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL BARMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SALWEEN TIMBER AND CONSTRUCTION CO INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION VS. K K KAR [REFERRED TO]
GAURI SHANKAR AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI GENERAL MANAGER E I RLY CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
RUNGTA SONS PRIVATE LTD VS. JUGOMETAL TRG REPUBLIKE [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG JUTE MILLS LTD VS. FULCHAND KANHAIYALAL CO [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH RUNGTA VS. ORIENTAL INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
GHEWARCHAND RAMPURIA VS. SHIVA JUTE BAILING LTD. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order of Ghosh, J. D/-10-11-1971 staying the suit filed herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) THE facts are that by exchange of a bought and a corresponding sold note both bearing No. RJ-50521 dated March 16, 1968, through the broker R.L. Saraf and Co., the respondent No. 1 herein, Lalchand Dharamchand sold to the appellant 600 maunds of Agartala Mesta Fibre at the rate of Rs. 38.50 P. per maund working out at Rs. 103.15 p. per quintal, delivery on 31st March, 1968, at the buyers mill siding. THE said contract between the parties was subject to the terms and conditions of the East India Jute and Hessian Exchange Association Ltd. relating to contracts for jute. THE relevant bye-laws of the said Association contained an arbitration clause and the same provided as follows:

(3.) NOT having received the payment in respect of the price of goods sold and delivered in spite of several demands, the respondent No. 1 on 6th Sept., 1968 wrote to the Forward Market Commission, constituted under Forward Contract Regulations Act, complaining about the non-payment of the aforesaid price by the appellant. The respondent No. 1 by the said letter requested the said Forward Market Commission to direct the appellant to make payment. By another letter dated 18th September, 1968 the respondent No. 1 enquired of the said Forward Market Commission if they wanted to intervene in the matter. Thereafter by another letter dated 27th Sept., 1958 the respondent No. 1 demanded payment once again and threatened to go to arbitration if the same was not made within three days thereafter.

Click here to view full judgment.

ALLIANCE JUTE MILLS CO LTD Vs. LALCHAND DHARAMCHAND

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address