525 of 59 .
This time the award was in favour of the respondent.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders and decree dated August 27, 1958, November 24, 1958, and March 10, 1958 of the Calcutta High Court, in Award Case No.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India A N. Sinha and P.K. Mukherjee, for the respondent in C. A. No.
309 of 59 .
The appellant appeared before the tribunal and companytended that it had numberjurisdiction to make an award on a second references in the same dispute.
C. Chatterjee and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant in C. A. No.
On April 17, 1952, the tribunal of Arbitration made an award disallowing the claim of the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. These two appeals by special leave from the judgments of the Calcutta High Court raise a companymon question of law and will be dealt with together.
26 of 1956 respectively.
Thereupon on August 4, 1955, the appellant made an application to the High Court praying that the award be set aside.
This award was filed in the High Court.
December 12.
103 of 1955 and Appeal from Original order No.
309 of 59 .
309 and 525 of 59.
Soon after the award had been set aside by the learned Single Judge, the respondent addressed a letter to the Chamber on September 7, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, S. K. Gupta and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent in C A. No.
In the alternative, the appellant prayed that the award be declared null and void and the arbitration agreement between the parties be superseded on the ground that the second reference was incompetent.
That order was taken in appeal and on July 8, 1954 L the appeal was dismissed.
and S.N. Mukerji, for the appellant in C. A. No.
C. Chatterjee, M. G. Poddar.
217 G of 1951 had been set aside by the High Court, the respondent begged to refer the matter for arbitration de numbero and enclosed its statement of the case.
These facts are that a companytract was entered into between the parties for supply of companynsacks on August 29, 1951.
It will be companyvenient to set out the facts of appeal 309 and deal with them in companynection with the point raised on behalf of the appellant.
Later, leave to appeal to this Court was refused and thus the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the award finally stood.
On May 25, 1953, the award was set aside on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators by a learned Single Judge.
It was said in this letter that as the award in case No.
Thereafter the appellant came to this Court for special leave, which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
Disputes arose with respect to carrying out of the companytract and on October 25, 1951, the respondent referred these disputes to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce hereinafter referred to as the Chamber .
525 of 59 .
That case was numbered 217 of 1951 in the Chambers records.
Thereupon another tribunal was companystituted under the rules of the Chamber to decide the dispute afresh.
