CHAITRAM RAMBILAS Vs. BRIDHICHAND KESRICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Imam made apparently under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act. There was an arbitration followed by an award. But it is alleged that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators; and it is on the ground of this misconduct that the application was made to the Court and succeeded before the learned Judge. The misconduct suggested was the failure to hear evidence Whether there was that failure or not is a matter in dispute.

(2.) But the way in which the case was presented to the learned Judge and in which he understood it appears from this passage in the judgment: The petitioners complaint is that the arbitrators refused to allow them to adduce evidence to establish their contentions and proceeded with the arbitration according to the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration established by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, and not according to the law under the Indian Arbitration Act. The petitioners contention is that the arbitration clause in the contract is merely an agreement to abide by the decision of the Chamber without accepting to be governed by the wide powers of that body as expressed in their rules." It is apparent, therefore, from this that it was admitted that the misconduct depended upon the alleged non- applicability of the rules governing an arbitration by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce. I cannot attribute any other meaning to the words of the judgment which I have just quoted.

(3.) The first question, therefore, which we have to consider is whether these rules were imported into the contract. Even without the assistance of any authority it appears to me that these rules were imported into the contract, and that without such importation the contract would be insensible so far as it related to arbitration. For it would involve the ridiculous position that every member of the Chamber of Commerce would have to sit on the arbitration. So that on the contract if self I should have felt no doubt. But apart from that there is a very- careful judgment of Mr. Justice Harington in Ganges Manufacturing Co. Ld. v. Indra Chand 33 C. 1169 delivered as far back as the 5th June 1906, where the contract was in the same terms as that with which we are now concerned. The learned Judge came to the conclusion which I have indicated as a correct view of the contract. That decision was certainly binding on the learned Judge, and according to my opinion should have been followed by him. It may not be binding on us in the strict sense. But I think it is entitled to every respect and it agrees with the view I entertain on the subject.