475/ per month for the said period during which the premises remained under requisition as against the appellants claim for Rs.
The said Chakravarty number having been able to companyplete the arbitration, the Government of West Bengal, by its order dated September 19, 1955, appointed his successor, one G. S. Chatterji as the Arbitrator.
5 of 1955.
Once the said G. Kumar, on an application by the Government of West Bengal, had substituted the Union of India as the opposite party in the arbitration proceedings before him, a fresh order under the Defence of India Act ought to have been passed.
Such a companyclusion appears to be borne out by an application made on behalf of the Union of India on February 8, 1961 before the said W. Basu Mazumdar.
The said G. Kumar started the arbitration proceedings afresh on December 19, 1955 substituting the Union of India in place of the State of West Bengal and also registered them under a new number, namely.
In passing the said order the learned Judge observed that the monthly companypensation of Rs.
It appears that these appointments were made number under the Arbitration Act, 1940, but under Section 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939.
the said Chakravarti and Chatterji, were appointed.
It was the last named arbitrator who ultimately companypleted the arbitration and whose award, dated March 18, 1961 has been challenged in the present proceedings.
This very companytention was raised by the appellant before the High Court.
169 of 1948 and the said order passed therein by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore.
169 of 1948, requiring the Government of West Bengal to appoint an arbitrator as provided under Clause 5 of the said agreement.
Although the said order required the arbitrator to submit his award by September 11, 1950, numbersteps were taken to proceed with the arbitration until February 9, 1955 when the Government of West Bengal, in exercise of the power companyferred by Section 6 of the Requisitioned Land Continuance of Powers Act XVII of 1947 , Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987 and Government of India, Defence Department Notification No.
169 of 1948 and ordered that the said agreement be filed by the Government of West Bengal.
Ac companyding to the appellant, he accepted the companypensation at the rate of Rs.
Under Clause 1 of the said agreement the appellant agreed to accept Rs.
475/ mentioned in Clause 1 of the said agreement was in respect of the structures standing on the said property only and that numbercompensation had been agreed upon in respect of the lands, tanks, loss of fishery rights and other rights, and therefore, disputes regarding companypensation in respect of them had arisen which required arbitration as provided by Clause 5 of the said agreement.
169 of 1948 and the said order passed therein by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore.
The arbitration case was registered by the said Chakravarty as Arbitration Case No.
It further provided that such arbitration would be governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940.
475/ per month for the said property in full settle merit of the companystruction for structure from March 15, 1942 till the Government remained in possession and the derequisitioning thereof companytinued.
It is number disputed that al though the said agreement was sign ed by the appellant it was number executed by any one on behalf of the Governor General in Council or the Government of West Bengal which had requisitioned the said property on behalf of the Central Government Even so, the Government paid and the appellant received Rs.
During the pendency of the said arbitration proceedings before the said Chatterji, the Government of West Bengal applied on December 6, 1955 for amendment of its written statement filed on July 12, 1955.
6 lacs and odd.
By that amendment it submitted that the appellants claim was unenforceable as a the said agreement, dated January 27, 1944 was number executed by the Governor General in Council or any one on his behalf, and b the Governor General in Council was number a party to the said Suit No.
According to him, that was the rent he used to receive from his tenant for one of the buildings and the companypensation for other structures and premises had number been taken into account.
A number of companytentions were raised on behalf of the Province of Bengal including waiver, estoppel and acquiescence, but numberquestion was at that time raised that the said agreement was number valid and binding as it had number been signed by any one on behalf of the Government of West Bengal or the Governor General in Council.
As in the case of the said G. Kumar, Ganguli and Lahiri, the order dated November 10, 1960 appointing the said W. Basu Mazumdar was passed in the name of Governor of West Bengal and recited the derequisitioning and the derequisitioning of the said property, the said agreement dated January 27, 1944 and its principal terms, the said Suit No.
The parties also filed their statements afresh, adopting the statements filed by them previously, the Union of India adopting the statement filed earlier by the State of West Bengal.
On December 23, 1955, the said Chatterji allowed the said amendment application.
Consequently, the Government of West Bengal, by its order dated December 16, 1957, appointed one G. Kumar as the Arbitrator.
1365 OR 42, dated September 19, 1942, appointed one D. N. Chakravarty, Additional District Judge, 24 Parganas as the Arbitrator.
In 1948, the appellant filed an application under Section 20 1 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the 5th Subordinate Judge.
Clause 5 of the said agreement provided for arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed by Government in case of any dispute or difference arising out of or companycerning the said requisitioned property.
The parties to the said application were the appellant the plaintiff and the Province of Bengal, but number the Governor General in Council.
Certain disputes having arisen as early as 1944, the appellant entered into an agreement, dated January 27, 1944, with the Governor General in Council.
The said Chatterji also companyld number companyclude the arbitration.
169 of 1948, number to the instant reference.
Alipore, which was numbered as Suit No.
The said property was derequisitioned with effect from November 28, 1947.
The learned Judge set out the items of differences to be decided by the arbitrator to be appointed in terms of Clause 5 of the said agreement.
280 of 1957, and issued numberices both under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and Section 19 of the Defence of India Act.
475/ per month under protest.
Surprisingly, all those orders uniformly recited the said agreement, the said Suit No.
The said G. Kumar also did number companyplete the arbitration and thereupon the Governor of West Bengal successively appointed N. G. Ganguli, P. M. Lahiri and lastly, W. Basu Mazumdar as arbitrators on January 2, 1958, January 21, 1959 and November 10, 1960 respectively.
475/ as monthly companypensation.
In any event, when his successors, including the said Basu Mazumdar were appointed, orders of their appointments companyld have been passed under the Defence of India Act.
By its order dated September 13, 1949 the Court allowed the said suit No.
5 of 1955.
280 of 1957.
That being so, the Arbitrator was number bound by the terms of the said order of the Court and the questions which the Court had framed for adjudication by the Arbitrator or the date fixed for making the award.
When the said Chatterji took it over, he companytinued the said arbitration proceedings under the said number, namely, No.
169 of 1948 and the said order passed therein by the Subordinate Judge, Alipore.
The award granted companypensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Calcutta for quashing an Arbitrators award for companypensation in respect of certain premises belonging to him which were requisitioned for the period between March 1942 to November 1947 under Rule 75 A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939.
