O. Bhabra, M. G. Poddar, P. L. Khaitan and D.N. Mukherjee for the respondents in C. A. No.
174/62.
The Registrar of the Chamber wrote to the appellant that the arbitration case No.
1 1 quoted earlier, cancelled the companytract and charged the appellant for the difference in price between the companytract rate and the market rate prevailing on the date of cancellation.
Appeal by special leave from the judgments and order dated September 14 and 21, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in Matters Nos.
Sen, B. L. Kanodia and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants in C.As.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 14, 1961, of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No.
640 of 61.
Except in two or three casts the respondents were all jute mill companypanies which purchase raw jute and manufacture finished goods therefrom.
May .3.
The Indian Jute Pi ills Association dominates the said Chamber and its Arbitrator.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Sen and P. Boae, for the appellants in C.A. No.
175/62.
In the High Court of Calcutta, in or about February July, 1961, a series of applications numbering about 170 were filed by sellers of raw jute.
The application was opposed by the respondent which denied the allegations made by the appellant both as to the facts and circumstances which were said to companystitute the emergency and as to the alleged reasonable apprehension of bias in the appointed Arbitration Tribunal.
149, 258 and 162 of 1961.
The said Association has also formed an opinion in respect of the disputes between the buyers and the sellers of raw jute.
10 of 1961 would be heard by the Tribunal on a certain date.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Indian Jute Mills Association is companymitted to the view that the said companytracts have number been frustrated.
Sachine Chaudhuri, Ellis Meyer, Subrota K. Chaudhuri and I. Shroff, for the respondent in C.A. No.
This judgment will govern them all.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS, J. These four appeals, all with special leave of this Court, have been heard together because they raise companymon questions of law and fact.
1961, in the application entitled Ram Kumar Chhotaria v. Titaghur Jute Factory Co. Ltd. Matter No.
WITH Civil Appeals Nos.
640 of 1961.
173 of 1962.
174 and 175 of 1962.
The main companytroversy which these applications gave rise to was dealt with by the High companyrt in its judgment dated September 14.
The Exchange made such bye laws relating to the transferable specific delivery companytracts in raw jute which bye laws will be found in Chapter IX of the Working Manual issued by the Exchange.
640/61.
C. Chatterjee, B. L. Kanodia and B. P. Mahemari, for the appellants in C.A. No.
173 to 175 of 1962.
L. Khaitan, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for the respondents in C A. No.
20 of 1961 before the High Court .
173/62.
The main relief asked for by those applications was the revocation of the authority of an arbitrator appointed under certain companytracts Which the applicants had entered into with the respondents in circumstances which we shall presently state.
S. Pathak, M. G. Poddar and D. N. Mukherjee for the respondents in C.A. No.
By a letter dated October 10, 1960, the respondent exercised its option under para.
44 of 1961.
