UNION TEXTILE TRADERS versus SURI BHAWANI COTTON MILLS LTD.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 15-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
429• 
UNION TEXTILE TRADERS 
v. 
SURI BHAWANI COTION MILLS LTD. 
September 15, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), ss. 5, 11, 30-These sec-· 
tion.i whether violated by r. 111(3) of the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian· 
L'haniber of Commerce ('alcutta-Said Rule empowering Registrc.r 
of 
Tribunal o.f Arbitration not to disclose names of arbitrators appointed by 
Chamber to a pc..,rt,v who was not meniber of Cha1nber-Appoint1nent of 
arbitra1or whe:iher not co1nu/,ete if nan1e of arbitrator not disclosed /1()1>-
parry-Com1nerciaf practice of not disclosinR na1nes-Justification for. 
A contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent 
in 1964 for sale of 200 bags of Cone yarn. "fhe \:Ontract inter alia con-· 
tained the condition that in case of any dispute arising out of the contract 
"the matter in Jispute shall he referred to the arbitration of the Indian 
Chamber of C0n11ne1-..;¢ whose decision shall be bin.ding on both 
the 
p::trtic::.··. 
The appellant was not a member of the said Chamber of Com-
me'rce; 1.hc respondent v:as. 
On dispute arising between the parties and 
being referred to the Chamber for arbitration the appellant wrote to the 
Registrar of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Chamber to intimate to· 
it the names of the persons constituting the court to enable the appellant 
to ascertain whether they v.'ere independent and disintersted persons. The'. 
Registrar refused to disclose H1e names on the ground that under the rules 
of the ·Chamber they could not be disclosed to a non-member. On persis-
tent refusal to disclose the names the appellant filed an application under 
s. 33 cf the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Cakutta High Court. 
The .applic·ation was dismissed, whereupon appeal by special leave was 
filed iO this Court. 
It v.1as urgid that the non-disclosure of the names of 
the arbitrators by the Registrar was violative not only of the rules of 
natural iustice but also infring~d the orovisions of the Arbitration Act. 
It was contended that there was a co"ftict between r. 111(3) of the Rules 
of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and ss. 5 and 11 or s. 30' 
of the Act, 
HELD : The appeal must be dismi'8ed. 
(i) The power given to the Registrar not to disclose names of the 
members of the arbitration court to non·members is di'scretiOnary ·and he-
is not bound in everv case to refuse to disclose the names. At any rate 
as soon as the proceedings coinmence the parties will know the names of the· 
arbitrators and obj~ction can be taken at that ·stage. 
lind'er s. 5 of the· 
Arbitration Act it is not essential that the authority 
of an 
appointed' 
arbitrator "hould be .izot revoked before the commericement of the arbira-
tion proceedines. 
section 11 contem1Jlates a st:ige subsequent to the· 
arbitrator enterin2 on the reference. 
There is thus rro conflict between 
r. IIJ(3) of the ·Rules of Arbitration of the Chamber end "· 5 and 11 
and 30 of the Act. 
These Rules do not interfere with cir take away the-
powers an j jurisdiction of the court under the afore_·said. rrovisions. The 
aonellant -itself had agreed to submit to the arbitration of the Chamber 
which meant that it was bound bv all the Rules of Arbitration of the said 
bodv. 
No iHegalitv or invaliditV coul<l be proje-<:ted into- tlie agreement 
by the presence of r. III(3). [434 C-F]. 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970) 2 S.C.R. 
(ii) The statement in ~ussel on Arbitration (17th &Jn. p. 207) that 
A 
·the appointment of an arbitrator by a party is· not complete without com-
munication hereof to the other party could be of no avail to the appellant 
'.Since in the present case the appointment of the ·arbitrator, namely, the 
Chamb~r of Commerce, was in every ·sense r.omplete., [434 G-H] 
(iii) The rule objected to by the appellant is part of the long standing 
practice of Chambers of Commerce in this/ counl.ry its justification being 
the elimination of all possibility or chance .Pf a party trying to influence the 
B 
members of the Arbitration court before/they enter upon or proceed with 
the reference. [435 C-D] 
Unreported iudgment of Calcutta High Court in Suraj Ratan Birany v. 
Hindustan Moton Ltd. decided on April 10, 1964, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1658 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 19, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in Matter No. 213 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.