The appellant thereafter applied under Art.
to be delivered 750 bales every month in October, November and December, 1955.
148 141 of 1957.
The learned Judge on the original side before whom the application came up for hearing dismissed it, and passed a decree in terms of the award.
These appeals were heard along with Civil Appeals Nos.
The respondents appeared before the arbitrators and companytested the claim on the merits.
142 and 143 of 1957.
The appellants then applied for a certificate under Art.
1963 AIR SC 90 1962 3 SCR 209 VENKATARAMA AIYAR, J. These are appeals by special leave against judgments of High Court of Calcutta setting aside awards which directed the respondents to pay companypensation to the appellants for Breach of companytracts, on the ground that they were in companytravention of a numberification of the Central Government dated October 29, 1953, and were in companysequence illegal and void.
In Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley and Company Ltd., 1960 1 SCR 569.
14 of the agreement.
133 1 c for a certificate and that having been refused they obtained from this Court leave under Art.
The arbitrators made an award in favour of the appellants for Rs.
In Civil Appeals Nos.
The appellants then applied to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce for arbitration in accordance with cl.
Thereafter they applied to this Court for leave under Art.
14 of the agreement.
The respondents appeared before the arbitrators and companytested the claims on the merits.
17, 500, and that was filed in the High Court of Calcutta on it original side and numberice under s. 14 2 of the Arbitration Act was served on the respondents.
133 3 of the Constitution by the same was refused.
This is how these appeals companye before us.
136 of the Constitution and that was granted.
10, 525, and that was filed under s. 14 2 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the High Court of Calcutta on its original side and numberice was issued to the respondents.
The learned single Judge on the original side before whom the application came up for hearing dismissed it and passed a decree in terms of the award.
The arbitrators made an award in favour of the appellants for Rs.
391 and 392 of 1960 the facts are similar.
Thereupon they filed an application in the High Court of Calcutta, presumably under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act, for a declaration that the companytract dated October 17, 1955, was in companytravention of the numberification of the Central Government dated October 29, 1953, and was therefore illegal and that the arbitration proceedings pursuant thereto and the award passed therein were all void.
389 390 of 1960 the facts are that on September 7, 1955, the appellants who are a companypany owning a Jute Mill at Calcutta entered into an agreement with the respondents who are also a Company doing business as dealers in jute, for the purchase of 2, 250 bales of the jute cuttings at Rs.
87 8 0 per bale of 400 lbs.,
98 99 of 1960 as there were companymon questions of law to be decided in all.
In Civil Appeals Nos.
Against the above judgment and order the respondents preferred appeals to a Division Bench of the High Court, Appeals Nos.
The appellants who are a companypany carrying on business in the manufacture of jute entered into a companytract with the respondents on October 17, 1955, for the purchase of 500 bales of jute cuttings at Rs.
The companytracts dated September 7, 1955, and October 17, 1955 are number transferable specific delivery companytracts and they are number hit by the numberification dated October 29, 1953.
The respondents made default in the delivery of the goods and thereupon the appellants moved the Chamber of Commerce for arbitration under cl.
They were heard by Chakravartti, C.J., and Lahiri, J., who held that the companytract dated October 17, 1955, was illegal as it fell within the prohibition companytained in the numberification of the Central Government dated October 29, 1953, and accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the awards.
Against both the judgment and the order, the respondents preferred appeals to a Division Bench of the High Court appeals Nos.
Thereupon they filed an application presumably under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act for a declaration that the companytract dated September 7, 1955, was illegal as it was in companytravention of the numberification of the Central Government dated October 29, 1953, and that the award based thereon was a nullify.
