1928 (8) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules in favor of plaintiffs for Rs. 22,899-3-3 with costs and interest. Res judicata plea rejected.

Abdul Rahim Oosman and Co. Versus Ojamshee Purshottamdas and Co.

Abdul Rahim Oosman and Co. Versus Ojamshee Purshottamdas and Co. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the arbitration submission.2. Eligibility of Mr. Duggan as arbitrator.3. Validity of Mr. Duggan's appointment as sole arbitrator.4. Allegations of fraud in obtaining the awards.5. Limitation of the current suit.6. Plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract.7. Extension of time for taking delivery.8. Genuineness of the resale.9. Loss suffered by plaintiffs.10. Satisfaction and suspension of plaintiffs' original claim.11. Cause of action arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.12. Conclusiveness of the judgment on the availability of sugar and genuineness of resale.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Arbitration Submission:The Court examined whether there was a valid submission to arbitration. The arbitration clause was part of the contracts, and the plaintiffs appointed Mr. Duggan as the sole arbitrator after the defendants refused to make any appointment. The arbitrator made seven ex parte awards in favor of the plaintiffs.2. Eligibility of Mr. Duggan as Arbitrator:The eligibility of Mr. Duggan was questioned based on whether he could be described as a 'European merchant' within the meaning of the arbitration clauses. Mr. Duggan was only an assistant and head of a department in a firm of European merchants.3. Validity of Mr. Duggan's Appointment as Sole Arbitrator:The Court reviewed the validity of Mr. Duggan's appointment as the sole arbitrator. The defendants declined to recognize the arbitration, which led to the ex parte awards.4. Allegations of Fraud in Obtaining the Awards:The defendants alleged that the awards were obtained by fraud, claiming that the resale was bogus and that no loss had been sustained. The Court found that the arbitrator had not been misled, no fraud had been made out, and the arbitration was valid.5. Limitation of the Current Suit:The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court analyzed the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith.6. Plaintiffs' Readiness and Willingness to Perform the Contract:The Court found that the plaintiffs had the goods and were ready and willing to deliver them. The defendants were not ready and willing to take delivery, leading to a breach of contract.7. Extension of Time for Taking Delivery:The Court determined that no extension of time was given for taking delivery, as alleged by the defendants.8. Genuineness of the Resale:The Court found that there was a genuine resale, the sum realized was reasonable and at the market rate, and the plaintiffs suffered the loss alleged due to the defendants' breach of contract.9. Loss Suffered by Plaintiffs:The Court concluded that the plaintiffs suffered a loss of Rs. 22,899-3-3 due to the defendants' breach of contract.10. Satisfaction and Suspension of Plaintiffs' Original Claim:The plaintiffs argued that their original cause of action remained suspended from the date of the awards until the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court agreed that the plaintiffs' claim remained satisfied up to that time, and they had a right of set-off against the sum ordered to be refunded.11. Cause of Action Arising from the Judgment of the Court of Appeal:The Court recognized that a fresh cause of action arose in consequence of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the awards and ordered the plaintiffs to refund the money.12. Conclusiveness of the Judgment on the Availability of Sugar and Genuineness of Resale:The Court considered whether the judgment was conclusive on the question of whether the plaintiffs had enough sugar to perform the contract and whether there was a genuine resale. The Court found that the issues were not finally decided within the meaning of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code but heard the evidence again and reached the same conclusions.Conclusion:The Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs for Rs. 22,899-3-3 with costs and interest. The plaintiffs were allowed to realize the decretal amount and the costs of the suit from the sum lying in Court in Suit No. 1008 of 1921, with the balance to be withdrawn by the defendants. The plea of res judicata was found to be misconceived, and the suit was held to be maintainable either on the ground of suspended limitation or a fresh cause of action arising from the judgment of the Court of Appeal.