JNANENDRA KRISHNA BOSE Vs. SINCLAIR MURRAY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland on an application under Section 19 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, for stay of a suit.

(2.) It appears that on the 3rd July 1919, the appellant, J. K. Base, gold certain goods to the respondents, Sinclair Murray & Co. On the same date, there was a sale of the identical goods by Sinclair Murray, & Co. to D. L. Millar & Co. Subsequently, disputes arose between Sinclair Murray & Co. and D. L. Millar & Co., with the result that there was a reference to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contrast between those parties. This reference resulted in an award for a large sum of money in favour of D. L. Millar & Co. against Sinclair Murray & Co. Sinclair Murray & Co. thereupon claimed to recover from J. K. Bose the sum whish they had been made liable to pay to D. L. Millar & Co. On this J. K. Base instituted the present suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,530 from Sinclair Murray & Co. Sinclair Murray & Co. then applied under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act to stay the suit.

(3.) Mr. Justice Buckland states in his judgment that towards the end of January 1919, Sinclair Murray & Co. took steps to refer their claim against J. K. Bose to arbitration, and that thereupon, on the 22nd February, the present suit was instituted by J. K. Bose against Sinclair Murray & Co. This, apparently, was a mistake. At the time when the suit res instituted by J. K. Boss against Sinclair Murray & Co. no reference had been made by the latter to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Tribunal in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the contrast between them. That clause was in these terms: "Any dispute arising on or out of this contrast shall be referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce under its rules applicable for the time being for decision, and such decision shall be accepted as final and binding on both the parties, to this contrast." The object apparently is to force J, K. Bose to have recourse to the arbitration clause. Mr. Justice Buckland has held that under the circumstances of the case the suit should be stayed. We are of opinion that this order cannot be supported.