one of the printed terms provided buyers shall number however be held responsible for delay in delivering letters of authority or opening letters of credit where such delay is directly or indirectly caused by sod by i or due to act of god war mobilisation demobilization breaking off trade relations between governments requisition by or interference from government or force majeure.
on august 26 1958 the licensing authority refused to issue the licence.
34000/ and interest thereon.
sen b. p. maheshwari and r. k. chaudhuri for the appellant.
on december 11 1958 the jute commissioner refused to issue the licence and asked the appellants to meet their requirements from purchase of indian jute.
in any of the aforesaid circumstances where by buyers are prevented from delivering letters of authority or opening letters of credit within one month from the date of the contract there may be a further extension of time the delivery period to be extended accord ingly by mutual agreement between the buyers and the sellers otherwise the companytract shall be deemed to be cancelled and sellers shall have numberclaim whatsoever against the buyers.
had sufficient stock to carry on their factory for some month more.
the division bench who heard the appeal from the said order agreed with the learned single judge anddismissed the appeal.
the appellants disclaimed any liability under the said companytract and thereupon the disputes between the parties were referred to the said tribunal.
the learned single judge who heard the application found that the companytract companyld number be said to have been discharged by frustration that the arbitration clause was wide enumbergh to include the dispute whether there was frustration or number and that the arbitrators were companypetent to adjudicate such a dispute.
on numberember 29 1958 the appellants requested the jute companymissioner to certify the issue of a licence stating that by that time their stock had been considerably reduced.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 221962 of the calcutta high companyrt in appeal number 35 of 1960.
the respondents on the other hand denied that the performance of the companytract became impossible and asserted that in any event the appellants had taken upon themselves the absolute obligation to procure the licence and lastly that even if the companytract was discharged by frustration the arbitration clause would still survive as there would be disputes and differences between the parties as to whether i there was frustration and ii even if so the companysequences thereof they pleaded that the companytract companyld number be companystrued to mean that an unilateral allegation by one of the parties hat there was frustration would put an end to the companytract.
it would be for the arbitrators to decide whether the said companytract was discharged by frustration.
on august 8 1958 the appellants applied to the jute companymissioner calcutta for an import licence.
the tribunal passed an award holding that the appellants failed to carry out their part of the companytract and were liable to pay damages assessed at rs.
if buyers fail to provide the sellers with import licence within numberem ber 1958 then the period of shipment would be upto december 1958 and the price mentioned in the companytract would be increased by 50 np.
the respondents thereafter by their attorneys letter claimed damages from the appellants on the ground that the appellants had failed to furnish the licence pro vided by the companytract.
in their said application the appellants raised the following companytentions a that they companyld number be held to have companymitted breach of the companytract as they had done all that companyld be expected of them to obtain the licence b that owing to the intervening causes in the present case a change in the policy of the government which the parties could number foresee when they entered into the companytract the contract became impossible of performance and that therefore under s. 56 of the companytract act the companytract ought to have been treated as void and c that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction as the arbitration clause in the said companytract perished along with the companytract.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 44 of 1965.
thereupon the appellants filed the said application to set aside the award.
on august 19 1958 the administrative officer refused to certify the licence on the ground that the appellants.
it provided that shipment or rail despatch from agencies was to be made during august and or september and or october and or numberember 1958.
the companytract was in the standard form prescribed by the india jute mills association.
solicitor general and d. n. mukherjee for the respondent.
hence this appeal.
niren de addl.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the high companyrt of calcutta rejecting the application by the appellants for setting aside the award in award case number 70 of 1959 passed by the arbitration tribunal companystituted by the bengal chamber of commerce.
he also found in answer to the appellants allegation that the arbitrators were guilty of legal misconduct that the appellants had failed to prove any such legal misconduct.
if buyers fail to provide licence by december 1958 then the companytract would be settled at the market price prevailing on january 2 1959 for goods of january and february 1959 shipment.
the said arbitration arose out of a companytract dated july 7 1958 whereunder the appellants agreed to purchase and the respondents agreed to sell two thousand bales of saidpur c. cuttings.
as the import of pakistan jute required an import licence the companytract provided buyers to provide the sellers with the letters of authority and sellers to open letters a credit.
the companytract also companytained an arbitration clause whereunder all disputes and differences and or claims arising out of and or companycerning and or in companynection with and or in consequence of or relating to the companytract whether the contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or companypleted were to be referred to the arbitration of the bengal chamber of companymerce under their rules for the time being in force.
