SURAJMULL ASKARAN Vs. CHANDMULL MOOLCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of my learned brother Mr. Justice Page who has set aside an award made by the Committee of the Baled Jute Association upon an appeal, as the proceeding is called, under the rules of that body. Putting the matter quite shortly, it was a dispute between the buyers and sellers of jute. The buyers said that although the original time ended at the e September, and an extension had been granted till the 15 of October 1920 there was a further extension till the 30 of October. The sellers denied that the extension bad been given and accordingly they refused the claim of the buyers that they were in default for not delivering at the end of October.

(2.) What happened was in effect this : There was first of all an abortive arbitration before a Mr. Holzman and that was followed by proceedings which set it aside and there was another arbitration before two arbitrators, a Mr. Holzman and a Mr. Singleton, These arbitrators disagreed and the matter was dealt with by Mr. Connew as umpire. Mr. Connew, on the 20th of May 1921, awarded damages to the buyers, the firm of Chandmull Moolchand, against the sellers, the firm of Surajmull Askaran. He ordered Messrs. Surajmull Askaran to pay Rupees 6,000 by way of damages for their failure to deliver at the end of October. There can be no doubt that that was the view taken by him because, as a matter of fact, he stated in his award that the damages were the difference between the contract-rate and the market-rate on the 30 of October 1920. Thereupon the sellers Messrs. Surajmull Askaran, who are now the appellants before us, appealed to the Committee of the Baled Jute Association and both sides took the view that the question to be decided was whether or not there had been an extension from the 15 of October to the 30 and what was the market-rate at the end of October.

(3.) The appellants before the Committee, if one may so call them, were Messrs. Surajmull Askaran. In their grounds of appeal they alleged that " the letter of Messrs. Massey & Co. was written on the information of some Babu " who, as a matter of fact, did not put through the alleged extension. They went on to say: Under the circumstances the arbitrators cannot possibly decide the case without taking oral evidence of the Babu and of our representative Ful Chand Serowgee who is supposed to have consented to an extension and which he emphatically denies that he consented to the alleged extension. We pray that the arbitrators should fix a time to enable us to give evidence on our behalf and no justice can be done to the merits of the case without allowing us to submit our evidence. Apart from the question of extension we have a very strong case on the question of the rate of the alleged damages as the figure claimed is absolutely fictitious and wholly exaggerated, We beg to reserve our submissions on this point viz., as to the amount of the grossly exaggerated claim which has no relation to prevailing market-rate. We shall submit our evidence on being asked by the learned arbitrators to do so.