INDIAN INDUSTRIES Vs. INDIAN TRADERS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT obtained an agency of distributorship for the State of Orissa from the Respondent. The agreement of agency had an arbitration clause. The said arbitration clause provided that in the event of dispute each of the parties would be entitled to nominate an arbitrator and in the event of disagreement between the two arbitrators, an umpire would be chosen as provided by the Arbitration clause. When dispute arose, Plaintiff gave notice for arbitration and nominated its arbitrator. Defendant having failed to comply with the notice within the statutory period, Plaintiff's nominee proceeded to deal with the dispute and passed an award on 16 -8 -1965. The award was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, for being made a rule of the Court. Objection was raised on the ground that (i) one S.K. Jajodia who had signed the agreement on behalf of the Appellant had no authority to enter into the agreement; (ii) the arbitrator who passed the award happened to be the son of the advocate of the Plaintiff and his appointment was a nullity; (iii) no notice had been served on the Defendant and (iv) the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to make the award a rule of the Court. All the objections were overruled and the award was made a rule of the Court. The matter was carried in appeal to the Delhi High Court which upheld the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on all Courts against the Defendant except that the Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the award for being made a rule of the Court. Thereupon, an application was made to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Cuttack under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. On notice from the Court at Cuttack, one Madanlal Upadhyaya filed an objection contending that there was no existence of any firm known as Indian Industries situated at 14 Contonment Road at Cuttack and on enquiry the objector gathered that such a firm had existed a long time back and its proprietor was Sri Biswanath Rice Mills Pvt. Limited, but the said firm had been closed down from 1964. The objector thus did not represent the Defendant and appeared to have filed the objection on his own behalf. The learned Subordinate Judge having rejected the objection on merit, the appeal has been carried to this Court by Sri S.K. Jajodia in the name of the Defendant.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by' the Plaintiff Respondent that the appeal is not maintainable in this Court in view or the fact that the matter is not conveyed either under Section 17 of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. Under Section 17 no appeal would lie from the decree except on the ground that the decree is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award. As a fact, the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge does not suffer from either of the vices indicated in the section. Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act provides for an appeal against the following orders:

(3.) FOR the reasons indicated above, this appeal has to fail. I make no order for costs.