BHAGWATI PROSAD HARLALKA Vs. KAMALA MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question for decision in this appeal against an order of Ray, J., allowing an application, under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for the stay of a suit, is whether the agreement as contained in the arbitration clause in the contract, in respect of which the suit was brought, is void and unenforceable because of vagueness and uncertainty. THE clause is in these words :

(2.) ASSUMING, however, the Rules did not contain any provision as regards the mode how a reference to arbitration should be made and assuming also that the result of that would be that a reference could not be made in accordance with the Rules, it should, I think, be the attempt of anybody trying to interpret the clause to see if on a reasonable interpretation some other meaning could be attached to the words used--some meaning which would instead of frustrating the obvious intention of the parties give effect to it. In my opinion, such an interpretation is not only possible but reasonable.

(3.) IT was next argued that the use of the words "for the time being in force" has at least made it uncertain as to what rules they had agreed upon. Even if there had been any doubt about the meaning which should properly be attached to these words, I would have been unable to think that the parties themselves had not a clear meaning in their own minds when these words were used. find, however, no reason to think that the meaning of these words is not clear. On a purely grammatical construction I would have no hesitation to say that by the use of the words "for the time being in force" qualifying the word "rules", the parties intended that the Rules, which will be in force at the time when the reference shall be made, would be applicable. The meaning of these words is in my opinion clear and the argument that the use of these words has made the agreement uncertain must, therefore, fail.