J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.@mdashThis is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Sir Norman Kemp, and the first point which the learned Judge
decided was that the action would not lie because it was a condition precedent to any action that there should be a reference to arbitration.
2. The dispute arises on certain contracts made between the plaintiffs and the defendants, all of which are in the same form, the form being Ex. A.
That is a document signed by the defendants and addressed to the plaintiff''s, dated January 4, 1928, and it says:
We request you to execute the following order on our account subject to the Rules and Regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited is
applicable and also subject to the terms and conditions of your contract.
Then follow various stipulations for the sale of certain cotton providing for payment and so forth. Upon the question whether there is a condition
precedent that the matter should be referred to arbitration, the only material part of the contract is that which I have read. The word ""is"" in the
phrase ""is applicable"" is not grammatical, but I think it means ""so far applicable"". Now in order to determine the question what the words "" subject
to the Rules and Regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited"" mean, and whether they make arbitration a condition precedent, one
has to acquaint oneself with the position of that Association. The first thing to look at is the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act of 1922. That Act
recites that it is expedient to provide for the regulation and control of transactions in cotton in Bombay. Then Section 3 gives the board, which is
the board of directors of the Association, power, subject to the sanction of of Governor in Council, to make by-laws for the regulation and control
of transactions in cotton, and a lot of subjects are specified which may be covered by the by-laws. One of them is, "" (i) providing for arbitration
and appeals against awards"", and the last one is, ""(m) regulating the course of business between parties to contracts in any capacity whether they
be members of the Association or not"". Then Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that bylaws made by the board under Sub-section (7) and
sanctioned by the Governor in Council shall be published in the Bombay Government Gazette. Then Section 4 provides: ""The constitution and
administrative machinery set out in the Articles of Association of the Association are declared to be lawful"". Section 5 provides :
Any contract (whether either party thereto is a member of the Association or not) which is entered into after the date on which by-laws under this
Act are sanctioned by the Governor in Council and published in the Bombay Government Gazette, and which contravenes any such by-law shall
be void.
It is to be noticed, therefore, that under that Act, Section 3 and Section 5 both cover the case of non-members, whereas in Section 4 there is no
reference to non-members.
3. The next document to look at is the memorandum and articles of association of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. Nothing, I think, turns
upon the memorandum : the Association is formed as a company limited by guarantee. The articles are for the most part in the common form of
articles used by companies registered under the Indian Companies Act, and of course in reading articles one has to remember the provisions of
Section 21 of the Indian Companies Act, which provides:
(1) The memorandum and articles shall, when registered, bind the company and the members thereof to the same extent as if they respectively had
been signed by each member and contained a covenant on the part of each member, his heirs, and legal representatives, to observe all the
provisions of the memorandum and of the articles, subject to the provisions of this Act.
That is a section taken from the English Act, and it is quite clear under that section that the articles are a contract between the company and the
members, and between the members inter 8e, but they do not bind outside parties. Now looking at these articles, it is worth observing that in
Article 5 occurs this phrase:
Every person, firm or company who having a place of business in Bombay and who up to May 10, 1922, or such extended date as may be fixed
by the Board, applies for Membership of the Association agreeing to be bound by these Articles and the By-laws, Rules and Regulations of the
Association from time to time in force.
The actual words used in the contract to be construed "" Rules and Regulations"" appear in this article and they seem to be used more in connection
with the by-laws than with the articles. So far as I can see, the only articles which may be said to affect persons other than members, that is,
persons engaged in the cotton trade other than members, are Articles 13-A, 95 and 96. Article 13-A provides :-
Any person, firm or company who has a place of business in Bombay and in the opinion of the Board is or intends to be engaged in bona fide
cotton business may in the discretion of the Board be licensed to trade as a cotton broker. Such license shall not be necessary in order to engage in
cotton breking business unless the By-laws so provide. Such license shall be granted and held upon such terms including payment and may be
suspended or cancelled or renewed as the By-laws may provide.
So that, although that article seems to deal with persons who are not members, it does not have any effect except so far as the by-laws provide.
Article 95 deals with hedge contracts, which are a particular form of contract in the cotton market, but that article is also incorporated in the by-
law. Article 96 provides as follows:-
Whenever any difference arises between Members or Associate Members or Special Associate Members or between one or more of them and
another or others who are not Members or Associate Members or Special Associate Members touching or in connection with the cotton trade or
any transaction therein it shall be referred to arbitration in such manner as shall be prescribed by the by-laws. And it is hereby expressly declared
that the holding of such an arbitration '' (which seems to be an arbitration between members or between members and non-members)'' and the
obtaining of an award thereunder shall be a condition precedent to the right of any Member or Associate Member or Special Associate Member
or non Member to commence legal proceedings against any other Member or Associate Member or Special Associate Member or non-Member
in respect of any such difference as aforesaid and any Member or Associate Member or Special Associate Member or non-Member shall have no
right of action against any other Member or Associate Member or Special Associate Member or non-Member except to enforce the award in any
such arbitration.
4. That is an arbitration provision inserted in the articles which makes arbitration a condition precedent to any right of action. The second part of it
covers in terms non-members. It covers a difference between one non-member and another non-member and taking it quite literally it appears to
impose as a condition precedent to an action between one non-member and another non-member, the holding of an arbitration between members
inter se or between members and non-members under the first part of the article, But whatever the article means it cannot under the ordinary law
bind non-members. In order to bind non-members it will be necessary to show that it has been given some special statutory effect.
5. The next document to consider is the by-laws, which contain provisions for arbitration in Clause (35) which deals with arbitrations in respect of
disputes ass to quality, and Clause (88) which deals with other disputes. This case falls under Clause (38), and not Clause (35) because there is no
dispute here as to quality. Clause (38) provides that:-
All unpaid claims whether admitted or not and all disputes (other than those relating to quality) arising out of, or in relation to (a) contracts (whether
forward or ''ready'' and whether between members or between a member and a non-member) made subject to these by-laws or (b) the rights
and/or responsibilities of commission agents, muccadums and brokers not parties to such contracts, shall be referred to the arbitration of two
disinterested persona one to be chosen by each disputant.
I can see nothing in that clause to make arbitration a condition precedent to the right to bring an action. It seems to me to be an ordinary provision
for referring disputes to arbitration, and such a provision does not in any way oust the jurisdiction of the Court. If an action is brought in respect of
a matter covered by the arbitration clause, the defendant can apply under the Indian Arbitration Act to stay the action, but it is not open to him to
say that the action does not lie.
6. Now, coming back to the form of contract Ex. A, one has to see what is meant by the contract being expressed to be subject to the rules and
regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited. Does the expression ""rules and regulations"" moan the by-laws, or does it mean the by-
laws and the articles of association V Sir Chimanlal Setalvad for the defendants points out that in Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Companies Act
the word ""regulations"" is used in connection with the articles of association. I have no doubt that in many contexts a reference to regulations of the
Association would mean the articles and nothing else, but the question is whether in this commercial contract the parties, when they say the
contract is made subject to the rules and regulations of the Association, mean anything more than the by-laws. The by-laws are the Code which the
Association has framed for governing cotton transactions, and they have to be published n the Bombay Government Gazette. Articles of
association, prima facie, according to the ordinary law, bind nobody except the Association and the members of the Association, and it seems to
no that the parties here, when they refer to rules and regulations n this contract, are referring only to the by-laws and not to the articles of
association. I should have mentioned that at the date of the first contract neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were members of the Association,
although at the dates of the subsequent contracts which were in January, February, and March, 1928, plaintiffs had become associate members,
while the defendants were not members. As a matter of construction of this contact I hold that the contract is made subject to the by-laws of he
Association, but not subject to the articles of association.
7. Then Sir Chimanlal Setalvad says that even if that is so, nevertheless Article 96 of the articles of association applies, because the Bombay
Cotton Contracts Act in Section 4 says that the constitution and administrative machinery set out in the articles of association of the Association are
declared to be lawful. He says that that means that the constitution and administrative machinery set out in the articles are to have the force of law,
and that is the view which the learned Judge in this case adopted. He held that this arbitration provision is part of the administrative machinery, and
that u/s 4 it must have the force of an Act of Parliament. In my opinion that is not the fair or proper meaning to be attributed to the words ''declared
to be lawful''. I think that all that those words mean is that the constitution and administrative machinery set out in the articles of association of the
Association are not to be attacked as unlawful. Why it was thought necessary to make that provision in the Act I do not know. It may very well be
that some of the provisions of the articles were thought not to comply, or that there might be a question whether they complied, with the Indian
Companies Act; or it may have been thought that there was some question as to there being provisions in restraint of trade or in the nature of
wagering or something of that sort. Whatever the reason for its enactment, it seems to me that all that provision in Section 4 of the Act means is
that the constitution and administrative machinery as set out in the articles are not to be challenged as being illegal, but it seems to me quite
impossible to say that the whole of the provisions of the articles relating to the constitution and administrative machinery are to have the force of
law. Whether the arbitration provision in Article 96 can fairly be described as administrative machinery I think extremely doubtful, but it is not
necessary to decide that point.
8. If I am right in the above view then the only provision for arbitration which is incorporated into this contract by reference to the rules and
regulations of the Association is by-law 38 ; and, as I have already said, I do not think that by-law makes reference to arbitration a condition
precedent to the bringing of an action. Therefore, in my judgment, the learned Judge was wrong in holding that the action would not lie.
9. I should add that it has been argued that if the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act has made arbitration compulsory under either Article 96 or by-
law 38 so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Court, it was not competent for the legislature to pass such an enactment. In the view I take of the
matter, it is not necessary to consider that question, because I think that Article 96 does not apply at all to this contract, and I think that by-law 38
is merely an ordinary provision for arbitration which does not in any way oust the jurisdiction of the Court.
10. The next point raised on the appeal, which is the subject, though I think not rightly the subject, of cross-objections by the defendants, is this,
that the contract in this case does not comply with Clause (81) of the by-laws. Clause (81) of the by-laws, which were in force at the date of this
contract, provides that: -
Contracts between Agents and their constituents, e. g., between a member and a non-member or between a member acting as an agent and a
member acting as his constituent shall be subject to the by-laws and shall be in writing in the form given in the Appendix (pages 67, 08, 69 and
70).
11. Then it goes on:-
A member whose constituent has agreed in writing to sign the prescribed form of contract and fails or refuses to do so after terms have been
arranged shall be treated in all respects as if he had done so and both parties shall have the rights and remedies accorded by these by-laws.
The learned Judge in this case held that the documents, to which I shall refer in a moment, amounted to a substantial compliance with the terms of
the by-law, that is to say, substantially they amounted to the same thing as the form of contract set out in the schedule to the by-laws, although they
were not in fact in that form, but in a later case he seems to have receded from that position. I see no reason why Clause (81) of the by-laws
should not mean what it says, i. e., that the contract between the agents and their constituents shall be in writing in the form given in the Appendix.
It may be very convenient that contracts relating to cotton should all be in the same form. Obviously it will assist arbitrators very much if the
contracts which they have to deal with are all in the same form; in course of time any difficulties which arise under them can be construed by the
Court, and people will get to know exactly what the contract means. If every member of the cotton association or other person dealing in cotton is
to have his own particular form these advantages will be lost. At any rate, whatever the reason for this by-law it says plainly that the contract shall
be in the form given in the appendix. Looking at the documents in this case, it is perfectly plain that they are not in the form given in the appendix.
Mr. Coltman says that he can bring the case within the second part of by-law 81, because he says that the defendants agreed in writing to sign the
prescribed form of contract and there was failure by the defendants to sign it. Now I am quite unable to find any agreement by the defendants to
sign the prescribed form of contract. The contract, as I have already said, starts with this provision, ""We (i.e., the defendants) request you to
execute the following order on our account subject to the Rules and Regulations of the East India Cotton Association Limited."" Mr. Goltman says
that ""subject to the Rules and Regulations"" involves signing the form of contract in the appendix. But it seems to me impossible to give that meaning
to the phrase. The defendants are requesting the plaintiffs "" to execute the following order on our account,"" and then follows an order not in the
least in the form of the contract referred to in the by-laws. I see no reason to suppose that defendants intended to be bound by two contracts or
were requesting the plaintiffs to procure two forms of contract for them to sign. Then that contract is followed by a telegram from the plaintiffs to
their brokers in Bombay requesting them to carry out the defendants'' order. That is Exhibit N1, and Exhibit 01 is a telegram from the brokers
stating that the order has been carried out. And then comes Exhibit A3, a confirmation notice which the plaintiffs sent to the defendants stating that
they have received from their Bombay friends, i.e., the brokers, a telegram advising sale on defendants'' account of such and such quantity of
cotton ""subject to usual terms of their contract of which please take note."" ""Their"" contract must, I think, mean the contract which the brokers have
entered into for the sale of the cotton. Then it goes on, "" The confirmatory note and the contract will be sent to you as usual, as soon as we receive
these from Bombay,"" and on that document, which is Exhibit A3, is endorsed by the defendants a receipt notice which is Exhibit A4, and the
suggestion is that that endorsement by the defendants on Exhibit A3 in some way binds them to execute a contract in the form set out in the
appendix to the by-laws. I am quite unable to see that it does anything of the sort. So far as the evidence goes, the parties never had any such form
of contract as required by the by-laws; they never discussed it, and I see no ground on which it can be held that the defendants have either signed
such a contract or agreed to sign such a contract, or that they ever heard of such a contract, and if that is so, they cannot have failed or refused to
sign such a contract. In my judgment the contract was not a compliance with the statutory form as the learned Judge held and on that ground the
action must fail.
12. The result is that the appeal fails, with costs, though our reasons are different from those of the learned Judge. I think this is a case where there
ought to be two counsel allowed under Rule 533 (ii) (as). The cross-objections were unnecessary and their costs are not allowed.
Baker, J.
13. I am of the same opinion, and have very little to add to the exhaustive judgment delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice.
14. As to the first point which was raised that the constitution of the East India Cotton Association, which compels all disputes arising in the cotton
trade, even amongst persons who are not members of that Association, to be referred to arbitration, has the force of law, I am of the same opinion
as my Lord the Chief Justice. If it was intended by the legislature to compel everybody who dealt in cotton to be bound by the rules of the East
India Cotton Association, I can only say that the legislature would presumably have dealt with the matter in a rather less casual manner than they
have done in Section 4 of Bombay Act XIV of 1922. All that the section says is that the constitution and administrative machinery set out in the
articles of association of the Association are declared to be lawful. If it had been intended to give them the force of law and to make them binding
on persona whether or not members of that Association, I can see no reason why the legislature should not have said so. The question, therefore,
of whether the local Legislative Council have the power to pass any Act of the kind is one which does not arise.
15. Then as regards the second point that supposing a reference to arbitration not to be made compulsory by law, still it is so made in this case by
agreement between the parties, I am of the same opinion as my Lord the Chief Justice that the agreement to be bound by the rules and regulations
of the East India Cotton Association does not necessarily import Article 96 of the articles of association into the contract between the parties. The
next point is one to which it seems there is really no answer. By-law 81 is in mandatory terms, and provides that contracts must be in writing in the
form given in the appendix, pp. 67, 68, 69 and 70. There is a great deal of difference between that form and the form employed by the parties
when the defendants originally asked the plaintiffs to purchase and sell certain cotton on their behalf. The form which is given in the by-laws is
shown in the printed book that we have been able to get. The original forms which have been provided by the Association are divided into several
parts, and one noticeable thing about them is that they have the regulations regarding reference to arbitration printed on the reverse. Therefore, it is
not open to anybody who enters into a contract of that nature and signs the prescribed form to raise any objection to the compulsory provisions
regarding arbitrations. There is nothing of the kind in the form which was signed by the defendants in the present ease, a form bearing the name of
the plaintiffs'' firm and apparently a private form printed by plaintiffs for their own private purposes, and although it contains a reference to the rules
and regulations of the East India Cotton Association, it cannot by any stretch of language be regarded as the form given in the appendix to the by-
laws of that Association.
16. Moreover, in the present case there is no agreement by the defendants to sign the prescribed form of contract, and there can be no failure or
refusal to sign the form when no such form has been tendered to them for signature. As far as appears from the record in the present case, I should
doubt very much whether either of the parties had the prescribed form when the transaction took place or had ever seen it. In these circumstances
I do not see how any endorsements made on other documents which have no relation to these by-laws can amount to an agreement in writing to
sign the specific form which is annexed to the bylaws of the East India Cotton Association.
17. In these circumstances, the appeal must fail, although our reasons are somewhat different from those of the learned Judge who tried the case,
and I agree with the order proposed by the learned Chief Justice.