RALLI BROTHERS Vs. NOOR MAHOMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are well known merchants carrying on business in Bombay have presented a petition to this Court praying that the legal proceedings instituted against them by Noor Mohomed Valley in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay may be stayed under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, and the clause in the contract, in respect of which disputes and differences have arisen, providing for a reference to Arbitration, may be enforced against the respondent. It happens that by a contract in writing bearing date the 30 of January 1906, the respondent agreed to purchase 150 tons of Belgian sugar imported into Bombay by the petitioners. The first clause of the contract, a copy of which is annexed to the petition, provides that the respondent should on arrival of the goods forthwith pay for and take delivery of the goods from the steamer's deck. The goods arrived by the steamship Trantentels, and the petitioners, on the 19 of March, wrote to the respondent asking him to take delivery in terms of his contract. Copy of the petitioner's letter is annexed to the petition and marked B. The petitioners allege that the respondent did not pay for the goods forthwith on their arrival in Bombay and did not take delivery of the goods from the steamer, that the goods had to be landed and the respondent took delivery of 750 bags on the 26 of March 1906, 426 bags on the 27 of March 1906, and the remaining 324 bags on the 4 of April 1906. After taking delivery the respondent contended that some of the bags of sugar were slack and torn and that portion of the goods were damaged. He claimed Rs. 382-2-3 as damages and on the petitioners refusing to pay him this sum he instituted a suit against them in the small Causes Court, being Suit No. 12,052 of 1906. The petitioners applied to the Judge of the Small Causes Court on whose Board the suit appeared to stay Proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and the learned Judge erroneously made the order. Against this order the respondent appealed to the full Court and the full Court correctly held that the Small Causes Court had no power to make such an order and set the same aside. Thereupon the petitioners presented a petition to this Court and the matter was argued before me in Chambers on Saturday the 1st. instant. Mr. Lowndes, who appeared in support of the petition, contended that Clause 9 of the contract was very wide in its terms and under that clause he was entitled to enforce Arbitration. Mr. Lowndes stated to the Court that it was a matter of principle on which his clients were fighting-that they had a great many similar contracts with other merchants and if they did not emerge the provisions of this clause his clients would be subjected to much harassing litigation. Mr. Robertson for the respondent contended.-

(2.) First, that the Indian Arbitration Act was not intended to apply to the Small Causes Court and that therefore I had no power or jurisdiction to stay proceedings in that Court;

(3.) Secondly that the petitioners in applying to the Small Causes Court had taken steps and that therefore under Section 19 of the Act their present petition must fail;