LexJUGGILAL KAMLAPAT versus GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS LTD. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 101 JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT v. GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS LTD. (AND CONNECTED APPEAL) (K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH. JJ.) Arbitralion-.!bnard set aside-Reference to a.rbitration not l1_uperseded-Second reference to arbitration, if permissible- Arbitration Act. 1940 (10 of 1940), s. 19. Disputes which arose between the parties with respect ta carrying out a contract were referred to the arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce in accordance with an agreement to refer disputes as and when -::hey arose to the arbitration of the Chamber. The award of the Tribunal of Arbitration was set aside by the High Court. On an applica- tion for referring the matter for arbitration de novo another tribunal was constituted which made a fresh award. The questions which arose for decision were whether after the first award was set aside the reference to arbitration was exhaus· ted and the arbitrator had become functus officio and whether without a fresh arbitration agreement it was not possible to have the same dispute decided again _by the arbitrator. Held, that the arbitrator became functus officio after he gave the av.:ard but that did not mean that in no circumstan- ces could there be further arbitration proceedings where an award was set aside or that the sam~ arbitrator could never have anything to do with the award with respect to the same dispute. Section 19 of the Arbitration Act empowered the Court not to supersede the reference and to leave the arbitration agreen1ent effective even when it set aside the award and there .. upon it would depend upon the terms of the arbitration agree- ment whether the arbitration proceedings could go on with respect to the same dispute or with respect to some other dispute arising under the arbitration agreement. Barangore Jute Ftu0tory v. H1das Chand Rupchand. (1958) 62 C.W.N. 734, Rallis India Ltd. v. B. V. Manickam Gheuy, A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 369, and Firm Gulab Rai Girdhari Lal v. Firm Bansi Lal Hansraj, A.LR. 1959 Punj. 102, approved. Mordu v. Palmer, ( 1870) 6 Ch. App. 22 and Sutherland and Go. v. Hannevig Bros. Ltd. [1921] I K. B. 336, referred to. In the present case the first award was set aside but as the reference had not been superseded and the arbitration 1961 December 12. 1961 J.,,UolK.,,.._, •• G-ol Filn1 n,,,,u,, LU. ,,..,.;, 102 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS fl962] SUPP. agreement subsisted it w:u open to the Chamber to appoint another tribunal under r. X of the Chamber Rules. CIVIL APPKLLA.TB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 309 and 526 of 59. Appeals by special leave from the judgment a.nd orders aad decree dated Augiut 27, 1958, November 24, 1958, and March 10, 1958, of the Cal- cutta High Court, in Award Caae No. 103of1955 a.nd Appeal from Original Order No. 26 of 1956 res- pectively. N. O. Ohatterje.e and B. P. Malieshwa~, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 309 of 59). H,N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, S. K. Gupta and D. N. Mukherjee, for respondent (in C. A. No. '309 of 59). N. G. Ohatterje.e, !rf. G. Poddar and S. N. Jlukerji, for the appellant (in C. A. N'0. 52.5 of 59). H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, A. N. Sinliu and P.K. -,O,fukherje.e, for the ri>spondent (in C. A. No. 525 of 59). 1961. December l:l. The Judgment of the Court was deliverc,d by WANCHOO, J. -These two appeals by special leave from the judgments of the C'llcutta High Court raise a common question of law and will be dealt with together. It will be convenient to set out the facts of a peal 309 and deal with them in connection with the point raised on behalf of the appellant. These facts are that a contract was en· tered into betwoen tne parties for supply of corns- acks on August 29, 1951. The contract contained au arbitration clause in the following terms . •·All matters, questions, dieputes, difl'- reuce and/or claim• arising out or and/or oon- uerning and/or in connect.ion with and/or in oonsequence of or relating to thls oontraot whaLher or not the obligation of either or both 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 103 parties under this contract be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this contract has been terminated or purported to be terminated or completed shall be referred to the arbitration of the. Bengal Chamber of Commerce under the rules of its Tribunal of Arbitration for the time being in force and according to such rules the arbitratio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.