UNION TEXTILE TRADERS versus SURI BHAWANI COTTON MILLS LTD.

UNION TEXTILE TRADERS versus SURI BHAWANI COTTON MILLS LTD.

There is no conflict between the discretionary non-disclosure rule (Rule III(3) of the Rules of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta) and Sections 5, 11, or 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The parties, having agreed to arbitrate under those rules, are bound, and the agreement is not rendered void. The requirement for the arbitrator's appointment to be communicated to the parties does not affect the validity where the arbitral institution is named as arbitrator in the contract. There is adequate opportunity to raise objections once proceedings commence and the arbitrators' names are disclosed at that time.

Parties
Appellant: Union Textile Traders; Respondent: Suri Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 September 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Calcutta High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Validity, Disclosure of Arbitrators, Natural Justice in Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Courts Under Arbitration Act
Arbitration Contract Arbitration Agreement Validity Disclosure of Arbitrators Natural Justice in Arbitration Jurisdiction of Courts Under Arbitration Act

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Textile Traders

Appellant

Suri Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Calcutta High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule III(3) of the Rules of Arbitration of the Indian Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta violates Sections 5, 11, or 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 by not disclosing names of arbitrators to non-members
  2. 2 Whether such non-disclosure renders the arbitration agreement void, illegal or violative of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

There is no conflict between the discretionary non-disclosure rule (Rule III(3) of the Rules of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce, Calcutta) and Sections 5, 11, or 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The parties, having agreed to arbitrate under those rules, are bound, and the agreement is not rendered void. The requirement for the arbitrator's appointment to be communicated to the parties does not affect the validity where the arbitral institution is named as arbitrator in the contract. There is adequate opportunity to raise objections once proceedings commence and the arbitrators' names are disclosed at that time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs