A. M. MAIR & CO. versus GORDHANDASS SAGARMULL.

A. M. MAIR & CO. versus GORDHANDASS SAGARMULL.

Both disputes—whether appellants were parties and the extension of time—fell within the arbitration clause of the contract. Therefore, the arbitrators had jurisdiction and the award cannot be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Parties
Appellant: A. M. Mair & Co.; Respondent: Gordhandass Sagarmull
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 November 1950
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Jurisdiction of Arbitrators, Construction of Contract, Brokerage Rights
Arbitration Contract Arbitration Clause Jurisdiction of Arbitrators Construction of Contract Brokerage Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. M. Mair & Co.

Appellant

Gordhandass Sagarmull

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a broker party is entitled to enforce an arbitration clause in a contract for sale of goods
  2. 2 Whether the dispute over the status of the party falls within the arbitration clause

Ratio Decidendi

Both disputes—whether appellants were parties and the extension of time—fell within the arbitration clause of the contract. Therefore, the arbitrators had jurisdiction and the award cannot be set aside for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside judgment of the appellate Bench of Calcutta High Court
  • Restore order of Sinha J.