9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Injunction against proceeding with the Bombay suit 2. Revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent 3. Stay of the Calcutta suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code 4. Appealability of the orders under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Detailed Analysis: 1. Injunction against proceeding with the Bombay suit The court addressed the application by the distributors (Mansata) to restrain the producer (Modi) from proceeding with the Bombay suit. The court found no grounds to consider the Bombay suit as mala fide. Modi had pleaded two business agreements and openly referred to the allegations of misrepresentation, providing Mansata the opportunity to prove their claims. The court concluded that there was no trace of mala fides in Modi's suit in Bombay and thus, no reason to restrain its prosecution. Consequently, Appeal No. 80 of 1955, seeking to restrain the Bombay suit, failed on the merits. 2. Revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent The court examined whether the order refusing to revoke the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was appealable. The court referenced the case of Hadjee Ismail Hadjee Hubbeeb v. Hadjee Mahomed Hadjee Joosub and concluded that such an order is appealable. The court noted that the leave granted under Clause 12 constitutes the foundation of the suit, and revoking it would terminate the suit. Thus, the refusal to revoke leave affects the defendant's rights significantly and is considered a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The court found no reason to revoke the leave granted under Clause 12, as the plaintiff had made a case that part of the cause of action arose in Calcutta. 3. Stay of the Calcutta suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code The court analyzed the applicability of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates the stay of a suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in a previously instituted suit. The court clarified that the decision of the Bombay Court of Appeal did not preclude the application of Section 10. The principal matter in issue in the Calcutta suit was directly and substantially in issue in the Bombay suit. The court observed that the basis of the defense in the Bombay suit and the claim in the Calcutta suit was fraudulent misrepresentation. If the defense succeeded in Bombay, it would nullify the Calcutta suit and vice versa. Thus, to avoid unnecessary duplication and conflicting decisions, the court decided to stay the Calcutta suit under Section 10. 4. Appealability of the orders under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the appealability of the orders. It held that an order refusing to stay a suit under Section 10 is appealable as it affects the jurisdiction of the court and the merits of the controversy. The court referenced several cases, including Jivanlal Narsi v. Piroj Shaw Vakharia and Co. and Durga Prasad v. Kanti Chandra Mukherji, to support its conclusion. The court also discussed the appealability of the order refusing to revoke leave under Clause 12, affirming that such orders are appealable based on the reasoning in Hadjee Ismail Hadjee Hubbeeb v. Hadjee Mahomed Hadjee Joosub. Conclusion: 1. Injunction against proceeding with the Bombay suit: Appeal No. 80 of 1955 was dismissed with costs, as the court found no mala fides in the Bombay suit. 2. Revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent: The court upheld the order refusing to revoke leave, finding it appealable but without merit to revoke. 3. Stay of the Calcutta suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code: The court allowed Appeal No. 64 of 1955 in part, staying the Calcutta suit pending the Bombay suit. 4. Appealability of the orders under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent: The court confirmed the appealability of orders refusing to stay a suit under Section 10 and refusing to revoke leave under Clause 12.
|
