BHOWANIDAS RAMGOBIND Vs. HARSUKHDAS BALKISHENDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit to set aside an arbitration award made by the tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.

(2.) The contract contained an arbitration clause in the following terms: "Any disputes to be settled by arbitration under the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, or at the option of the sellers by the arbitration of two European Sugar Importers of Calcutta, one to be appointed by the sellers and one by the buyers, with power to appoint a European Merchant as Umpire. The decision of the Chamber, Arbitrators or Umpire shall be final and binding on both parties, either of whom may make the same a rule or order of Court. If the buyers shall fail to join in such arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator within three days after being required to do so, the arbitration may at the option of the sellers, proceed ex parte, and the award thereon shall be binding on the buyers, and the sellers may make the same a rule or order of the Court."

(3.) On the 1 September 1920, the buyers made a reference to the Chamber. Thereupon correspondence followed. On the 4 October 1920, the Registrar of the Chamber intimated to the sellers that the reference had been received and requested them to send their papers on or before the 12 October, failing which arbitration would be proceeded with in their absence. On the same date the sellers stated that they wanted time for a fortnight after which they would be able to send their statement and papers. On the 12 October, the Registrar sent an intimation that unless the statement and the papers were received, on or before the 30 October, the arbitration would be proceeded with ex parte. It was also intimated that no further extension would be granted under any circumstances whatever. On the 13 October, time was extended till the 11 November 1920. There was later a further extension till the 10 December 1920. It does not appear that the sellers took any steps whatever to join in the reference and to assist the arbitrators. On the other hand, on the 13 December 1920, they intimated that they would not submit to the jurisdiction of the tribunal of arbitrators, as the tribunal could not possibly have any jurisdiction over the matter. The result was that the arbitrators proceeded ex parte, and on the 23 December 1920, an award was made. The sellers thereupon instituted the present suit to have the award set aside, on the ground amongst others, that it had been made without jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Buckland overruled this contention, investigated the other objections against the award, and dismissed the suit in view of the terms of Clause 17 of the contract. We agree with Mr. Justice Buckland that the sellers had the option to make a reference to the arbitration of two European Sugar Importers, of Calcutta, but they never exercised that right. Consequently, the objection to arbitration by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce is futile and the award must be regarded as made with jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the contention of the appellant has been limited to two grounds, namely, first, that the award should be set aside as proper notices were not given, and, secondly, that the arbitrators had no authority to allow interest after the date of the award.