Trade name contracting and arbitral evidence assessment upheld as valid despite objections to corporate name and delivery proof.

A company may carry on business and contract under a trade name different from its registered corporate name where it is disclosed as the proprietor, so the contract is not void merely for want of identity with the registered name; on that basis, the arbitration agreement and award were treated as valid. The award was also not liable to be set aside merely because the arbitrator accepted one version of the delivery evidence or because the petitioner considered the delivery orders and proof of delivery insufficient, as assessment of evidentiary weight remained within the arbitrator's province. The application was dismissed and the award upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company could lawfully carry on business and enter into a contract in a trade name different from its registered corporate name, so as to sustain the arbitration agreement and award. (ii) Whether the award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator had no evidence or had acted perversely in relation to delivery orders and proof of delivery.

Issue (i): Whether a company could lawfully carry on business and enter into a contract in a trade name different from its registered corporate name, so as to sustain the arbitration agreement and award.

Analysis: The relevant company-law provisions requiring a company to state and use its registered name did not create an absolute bar against the company owning or carrying on a business under another trade name. A distinction was drawn between the company's corporate name and the business name under which it chose to trade. Where the company disclosed itself as the proprietor of the concern, the business name remained referable to the company, and the contract made in that business name was not void merely for want of identity with the registered name.

Conclusion: The objection failed. The arbitration agreement and the award were not invalid merely because the business was carried on in the name of Victory Jute Mills.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was liable to be set aside on the ground that the arbitrator had no evidence or had acted perversely in relation to delivery orders and proof of delivery.

Analysis: Questions relating to the weight and sufficiency of evidence, including the acceptance or rejection of delivery-related evidence, were within the arbitrator's province. A challenge to the award could not succeed merely because one party considered the evidence inadequate or because delivery orders were not produced to the petitioner's satisfaction. No ground was made out for treating the award as perverse or otherwise invalid on this basis.

Conclusion: The objection failed. The award could not be set aside on the ground of insufficiency or appraisal of evidence.

Final Conclusion: The application was dismissed, and the arbitration agreement and award were upheld as valid and binding.

Ratio Decidendi: A company may legally carry on business and contract under a trade name different from its registered name when the company is disclosed as the proprietor, and an award cannot be set aside merely because the arbitrator appreciated evidence differently or accepted one version of the facts.

---