Skip to content


Gulab Chand Chotey Lal Vs. Kishen NaraIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectArbitration
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All703
AppellantGulab Chand Chotey Lal
RespondentKishen NaraIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- - but it cannot be said that the court below has committed an obvious error in interpreting it as meaning that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration the condition that no dispute shall be raised or claim made unless notice of difference, whatsoever, is given to the opposite party within eight days from delivering the shipment samples, if any, and invoice, might well have been intended merely to prevent belated disputes from being raised, with the object of putting a time limit beyond which the claimants should not wait......knows the partner who signed it, might have had general authority to do so. we cannot allow this point to be raised.3. lastly it is contended that in view of the united provinces arbitration amendment act, 1912 there can be no valid submission to arbitration at all unless the agreement of reference contains, in express terms, the statement that the reference was being made under the arbitration act. this argument is untenable. the object of defining 'submission' as meaning a written agreement to submit present or future disputes to arbitration under the arbitration act 1899, was to make it clear that every submission to arbitration, whether it professes to be under the arbitration act or not, must of necessity be under the act. the object was just contrary to what is contended before.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.

1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing the suit. The plaintiff claimed the return of the money advanced on account of a contract for the supply of foreign cloth. The main defence to the suit was that under Clause 6 of the agreement the dispute had to be referred to arbitration and could not be heard by the Court. This plea had found favour with the Court below. Clause 6, is somewhat unhappily worded; but it cannot be said that the Court below has committed an obvious error in interpreting it as meaning that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration The condition that no dispute shall be raised or claim made unless notice of difference, whatsoever, is given to the opposite party within eight days from delivering the shipment samples, if any, and invoice, might well have been intended merely to prevent belated disputes from being raised, with the object of putting a time limit beyond which the claimants should not wait. In any case we are unable to hold that this is a fit case for interference in revision.

2. The learned advocate for the appellant has raised a further question that the agreement signed by only one of the partners was not valid. This point was. not raised at the trial, for aught one knows the partner who signed it, might have had general authority to do so. We cannot allow this point to be raised.

3. Lastly it is contended that in view of the United Provinces Arbitration Amendment Act, 1912 there can be no valid submission to arbitration at all unless the agreement of reference contains, in express terms, the statement that the reference was being made under the Arbitration Act. This argument is untenable. The object of defining 'submission' as meaning a written agreement to submit present or future disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1899, was to make it clear that every submission to arbitration, whether it professes to be under the Arbitration Act or not, must of necessity be under the Act. The object was just contrary to what is contended before us. The result is that in places in the United Provinces where the Arbitration Act is applicable there cannot be any submission to arbitration except under the Arbitration Act. The point therefore has no force. We dismiss the revision with costs which will include in this Court-fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //