Skip to content


Rupchand Bothra Vs. Pannalal Johorilal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Cal415
AppellantRupchand Bothra
RespondentPannalal Johorilal
Cases ReferredJureidini v. National British
Excerpt:
- .....cause court. the parties had entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods, and that contract contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute whatsoever arising in or out of the contract shall be referred to arbitration. the plaintiff in spite of that arbitration clause brought a suit in the court of small causes for the differences between the contract rate and market rate of certain goods. the defendant then applied under section 19, arbitration act of 1899 as amended, which was then in operation, for stay of the suit on the ground that it should go to arbitration. the plaintiff opposed that application because he stated that the contract contained an interpolation with regard to import duty. the learned judge of the court of small causes has stayed the suit.....
Judgment:
ORDER

McNair, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for a revision of a decision of the Small Cause Court. The parties had entered into a contract for the purchase and sale of goods, and that contract contained an arbitration clause providing that any dispute whatsoever arising in or out of the contract shall be referred to arbitration. The plaintiff in spite of that arbitration clause brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes for the differences between the contract rate and market rate of certain goods. The defendant then applied under Section 19, Arbitration Act of 1899 as amended, which was then in operation, for stay of the suit on the ground that it should go to arbitration. The plaintiff opposed that application because he stated that the contract contained an interpolation with regard to import duty. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has stayed the suit and ordered the matter to be referred to arbitration, and that order was upheld by the full Bench of the Court of Small Causes. On behalf of the applicant it is argued that this question of the interpolation of certain words goes to the root of the contract and that that is not a matter which should be left to the arbitrators. This is an argument which does not appear to me to be sound. Reliance has been placed on a case in Jureidini v. National British & Irish Millers Insurance Co., Ltd (1915) 1915 AC 499 which appears to me to be entirely different on the facts from this case. In that case the only question which should be submitted to arbitration was the question of damages, here all disputes of any kind whatsoever may be referred to arbitration, and I see no reason why the question whether words with regard to extra import duty were contained in the contract or not, should not be decided by the arbitrators just as much as by the Court.

2. The Arbitration Act of 1940 was not in operation when the application was made. The application was made after the Act of 1899 was amended, but by the time the application was heard by the Full Bench of the Court of Small Causes, the Arbitration Act of 1940 was in operation. In my opinion this makes no difference. The Act of 1899 was the Act under which, the application was made, and that would prevail. The application is dismissed with costs.


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