CHATURBHUJ BHAWANIDAS Vs. DEOKARAN NANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Mulla on a petition to set aside an award. The facts which gave rise to the petition were these:--The petitioner purchased 600 bales of Oomra Cotton from the firm of Devkaran Nanji on September 11, 1922, for September delivery. The petitioner was not a member of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., but the respondents, the firm of Devkaran Nanji, were members of that Association. The contract was expressly subject to the rules and regulations of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. Apparently the petitioner sold these bales to the firm of N.V. Dossa & Co. and they sold to Sangidas Jesiram. The respondents gave delivery orders for 500 bales, but did not deliver 100 bales. These delivery orders were gassed on to N.V. Dossa and Co., and tendered to Sangidas, out of which he failed to take delivery of 400 bales and objected to 100 bales as not being of the contract quality. On October 5, 1922, Sangidas was declared a defaulter and subsequently N.V. Dossa Co. became defaulters in their turn. The respondents sought to hold the present appellant responsible in respect of the 400 bales. Anyhow there were differences between the parties with reference to the said contract of 600 bales; and in pursuance of the provisions relating to arbitration in the rules of the East India Cotton Association, the respondents wrote to the petitioner on October 26, 1922, informing him that they had appointed Mr. Cedraschi their arbitrator and asked him to nominate his arbitrator. The petitioner did not reply before November 1. According to the rules the Chairman of the Association nominated, on October 31, 1922, two arbitrators, Mr. Cedrashi and Mr. Mulji Luxmidas. On November 1, the appellant wrote to the Chairman of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., stating that he could not appoint his arbitrator as he was not a member of the Clearing House, and that with a view to bring the dispute to an end he had appointed from his side Mr. Haridas Madhavdas of Messrs. Umersey Damodar & Co. as an arbitrator. This letter, however, was of no effect, as by that time the Chairman of the Association had appointed two arbitrators in accordance with the rules of the Association.

(2.) On November 8, 1922, Mr. Cedraschi wrote to the Manager of the Association declining to act as an arbitrator and requesting him to appoint somebody else in his place. On the same day the Vice-Chairman appointed Mr. H.E. Brandon in place of Mr. Cedraschi. Thereafter the petitioner and the respondents appeared before the arbitrators. At the request of the arbitrators the Chairman of the Association extended the time for making the award up to December 27, 1922. The two arbitrators, however, did not agree, and they appointed Mr. Fleming as an umpire between December 14 and 21. The two arbitrators prepared their notes, each stating his opinion and grounds thereof and the notes were handed over to Mr. Fleming.

(3.) On December 27, Mr. Brandon, one of the arbitrators, wrote to the Secretary of the Association to extend the time for the umpire to make his award. The Deputy Chairman extended the time to January 10, 1923. This was done apparently on the same day, i.e., December 27. Mr. Fleming made his award on January 5, 1923, without giving any notice to the parties and without hearing them.