On the same day on which the reply was received by the respondents, i.e., on the 9th July, 1946, they ad dressed a letter to the appellants pointing out that the extension of time had number been intimated within the 5th working day as provided in the companytract and therefore the companytract was automatically cancelled.
A sum of Rs.
On the 2nd July, 1946, the respondents addressed a letter to the appellants stating that the balance of jute companyld number be despatched owing to lack of wagons, and exten sion was requested for a period of one month.
The appellants asserted in reply that the allegation made by the respondents in regard to there being numberprivity between them and the appellants was wrong, and in paragraph 16 of their affidavit they stated as follows With regard to paragraph 7 of the petition I crave reference to the said companytract for its true companystruction and effect.
On the 6th February, 1947, the Tribunal of Arbitration made an award to the effect that the due date of companytract had been extended by mutual agreement up to the 31st July, 1946, and accordingly the respondents should pay to the appellants a sum of Rs.
4,116 was submitted by the appellants to the respondents, who, in their turn, denied their liability to pay the sum.
The case was heard by Sinha J., who dismissed the peti tion on the ground that the companytract was directly between the respondents and the appellants.
Nearly a year later, on the 19th February, 1949, a petition was presented by the re spondents under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, to the High Court at Calcutta, in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, praying inter alia that the award may be adjudged to be without jurisdiction and void and number binding on the respondents, and that it may be set aside.
The main point raised by the respondents in the petition was that it was number open to the appellants to invoke the arbitration clause, as the Bengal Jute Mill Company and number the appellants were the real party to the companytract and the appellants had acted as mere bro kers.
N. Grover, for the respondents.
The appellants thereafter having obtained a certificate from the High Court under section 109 c of the Code of Civil Proce dure, preferred this appeal.
4,116 together with interest at the rate of 4 per annum from the 10th August, 1946, until the date of the award.
After this letter, some further companyrespondence followed between the two par ties, and finally a bill of difference amounting to Rs.
210 was also held to be payable by the respondents on account of companyts.
On the same day, a bought numbere Exhibit B was addressed by the appellants to the Bengal Jute Mill Company, with the following statement We have this day bought by your order and.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents being dissatisfied with the judgment of Sinha J., preferred an appeal, which was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court companysisting of the learned Chief Justice and Chakravarthi J. The learned Judges held that having regard to the fact that the appellants own companytention was that they had entered into the companytract as brokers and were entitled to enforce its terms by reason of the usage or custom of the trade, it was number open to Sinha J. to treat them as principals, and the award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitration tribunal had numberjurisdiction to make an award at the instance of a per son who was number a principal party to the companytract.
for your account from the undersigned, etc.
The word undersigned admittedly refers to the appellants, and, at the end of the companytract, below their signature, the word brokers is written.
XLII of 1950.
Appeal from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court Harries C.J. and Chakravarthi J. in Appeal from Original Order No.
On the 25th January, 1946, the appellants entered into a companytract with the respondents for the sale of 5,000 mounds of jute, which was evidenced by a sold numbere Exhibit A , which is in the form of a letter addressed to the respond ents, companymencing with these words We have this day sold by your order and for your account to the undersigned, etc.
In reply to this letter, which was received by the appellants on or about the 3rd July, 1946, time was extended till the 31st July, 1946.
The facts of the case are as follows.
November 30.
The appellants thereupon claimed arbitration under clause 11 of the sold numbere and submitted the dispute between them and the respondents to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce.
The judgment of Fazl Ali and Patanja li Sastri JJ.
C. Chatterjee B. Sen, with him , for the appellants.
was delivered by FAZL ALI J. This is an appeal from a judgment of a Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in West Bengal, reversing the decision of a single Judge of that Court, who had refused to set aside an award given by the arbitration tribunal of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce on a submission made by the respondents.
78 of 1948.
