9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (7) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s is claimed in respect of certain Time Certificates of Deposit issued by the Bank of America, two of which had been issued by its Banking Office at San Francisco and one by its Banking Office at Los Angeles in the State of California, U.S.A. The plaintiff claims to have lost these certificates in London together with a cashier's cheque for interest. The loss was reported to the two offices. The plaintiff claims that thereafter the defendant insisted upon various formalities being complied with by the plaintiff, which it was not entitled in law to do and was contrary to true legal position pertaining to the three Time Certificates of Deposit as also contrary to certain oral talks set out in the plaintiff's pleadings which are unnecessary to be referred to in this judgment. Although, according to the plaintiff, these demands were illegal and improper, he was forced to comply with the same in order to salvage his funds. The plaintiff also claims that this improper, invalid and illegal course of action was resorted to by the defendant on several improper considerations which are set out in para. 96 of the plaint. In the subsequent paragraphs of the plaint various acts of commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay Branch to accept on behalf of the defendant service of process and notices and other documents and the authorisation stands duly communicated to the Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. 131. That the defendant has ample property in Bombay and elsewhere in India and the judgment, the decree and the orders of the Hon'ble Court can be effectively executed against it. A perusal of these paragraphs would clearly indicate that jurisdiction is claimed against the defendant in tile plaint not on account of any plea of accrual of the cause of action but by reason of the fact principally that it has a full-fledged branch at Bombay, which is not separately incorporated, and, therefore, according to the plaintiff, constitutes the defendant in Bombay; according to the plaintiff, the defendant, therefore, carries on business in Bombay. In the alternative, it is suggested that the defendant corporation carries on business through its branch in Bombay, which may be deemed to be its agent and on whom the processes and notices could be served and through whom it can be sued. It has been pleaded in the further alternative that the defendant has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any event submits that in respect of the alleged cause of action the plaintiff and the defendant are governed by the Californian laws and this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. 88. With reference to para. 126 of the plaint, the defendant denies that it is fair to require the defendant to submit to the suit in Bombay. The defendant says that on the contrary, it is highly improper for the plaintiff to have filed this suit in this Hon'ble Court when no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The transaction referred to in the plaint arises outside India, all documents, papers, vouchers and the evidence of the parties is outside India and it would be highly inconvenient to defend the present suit in Bombay. 89. With reference to para. 129 of the plaint, the defendant craves leave to refer to Section 801 of the Californian Corporation Code and referred to in the said para. for its true interpretation. The defendant says that the said section applies only to a corporation formed under the Californian laws, The defendant says that the defendant is formed under the Federal laws and the said s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to address us briefly on certain other aspects on which we did not require assistance from Mr. Andhyarujina. 7. The appellant claims that this Court has jurisdiction on two broad heads: (i) that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court or must be deemed to have abandoned or waived the plea as to want of jurisdiction, and (ii) the defendant corporation was carrying on business within the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court through its branch at Bruce Street, Bombay, which branch had also been disclosed as its principal place of business in India as provided in Section 592(1)(e) of the Companies Act, 1956. As the defendant had also furnished the names and addresses of persons authorised to accept service of process on its behalf it was urged that the defendant must be deemed to have submitted to the. jurisdiction of this Court. 8. We propose to deal with the first aspect of the contention as to jurisdiction earlier as, in our opinion, it does not admit of any detailed discussion and the conclusions of the learned single Judge appear to us to be fully justified. It has been submitted by the appellant that one of the acts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an appearance is required to be filed under the Civil Procedure Code only in actions, where a person is served as an alleged partner in the defendant firm and wishes to dispute his status as a partner. The position is different in England where there is provision for what is described in Nuruddin's case as conditional appearance which is also sometimes called appearance under protest. 11. In the present suit the defendant has filed a written statement in which the plaintiff's allegations in the plaint had been traversed on merits in addition to the pleas as to want of jurisdiction, which pleas have been earlier set out in this judgment earlier. It appears the position in England is that this may amount to submission to jurisdiction of the Court. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Ramanlal v. Ramgopal [1954] A.I.R. Raj. 135 where in para. 9 it was observed that when the defendant appears not only to protest jurisdiction but also pleads to the merits, such an appearance amounts to voluntary submission on his part and the fact that he has in the pleadings also protested to the jurisdiction would not detract from the principle of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Supreme Court, it must be stated that the observations in favour of the appellant in Ramanlal's case are no longer good law. The question, however, remains of considering whether after the filing of the written-statement there has been long and continued participation by the Bank of America in the proceedings without any protest. It was the contention of the appellant that in a number of interlocutory proceedings the Bank of America had filed affidavits and it was urged that a number of proceedings had to be taken out because of the defendant's defaults. It was urged that in fact it was this conduct which made necessary these interlocutory proceedings and that the defendant in the circumstances could be said to fall within the principle of long and continued participation enunciated by Bachavat J, in Bahrein Petroleum' case. In these circumstances it becomes necessary to consider the various stages in the progress of the suit. 12. The plaint was lodged on June 24, 1969 and admitted on the 26th of the, said month; the smmons appears to have been served on July 4, 1960 and the attorneys for the Bank of America put in their appearance on July 5, 1969. On Novemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings by way of a chamber summons for issue of commission. The plaintiff's affidavit of documents was filed on August 26, 1970 and the Bank of America filed its affidavit of documents on April 13, 1970. It may be mentioned, however, that, subsequently two supplemental affidavits of documents were filed on behalf of the Bank dated October 31, 1974 and November 29, 1974 respectively. The plaintiff also filed a supplemental affidavit of documents dated August 25, 1975. 14. On February 14, 1974 the plaintiff took out a chamber summons for amending the plaint. In this chamber summons the defendant filed an affidavit in reply, inter alia, contending that the chamber summons was an abuse of the process of the Court. This chamber summons was made absolute by the Chamber Judge on February 22, 1974 and the plaintiff thereafter carried out the amendments on February 25, 1974. The plaintiff thereafter took out another notice of motion dated March 7, 1974 praying that the defence of the Bank of America be struck off inasmuch as the defendant had not given inspection of some of the original documents, but of photo copies thereof. The Bank of America filed an affidavit in reply to the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmercial Code of California and (2) Dearing's California Civil Practice Codes (published by Bancroft-Whitney). This, however, was without prejudice to the defendant's contention as to the relevance and applicability of these statutory provisions to the dispute between the parties. As far as the application to examine the plaintiff's son and another person on commission to prove the plaintiff's monetary distress was concerned, no order was made on the chamber summons, but it was indicated that the plaintiff would be entitled to apply to the Court at the appropriate stage at the hearing of the suit for an adjournment to produce such evidence or for such examination and that at that time an appropriate order could be passed by the Judge hearing the long cause. In the plaintiff's chamber summons dated August 16, 1974, the defendant filed affidavits and tendered supplemental affidavits making further disclosures. An affidavit was sought to be tendered to the Court on October 31, 1974 which was found to be unacceptable and which was described in the order (which was incidentally made by me) as one frivolously made without any sense of seriousness or responsibility . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The conduct of the Bank of America in not filing proper affidavits of documents or its refusal or inability to give inspection as ordered cannot be commended; but the consequence of such conduct can be penalty in costs. Such conduct, howsoever unsatisfactory, Cannot be regarded as tantamount to waiver or abandonment of the plea of want of jurisdiction. 17. In his judgment the learned single Judge also considered the question of declaration and furnishing of information under Section 592 of the Companies Act in conjunction with the plea of submission to jurisdiction. This aspect, in our opinion, is required to be considered in the proper perspective a little, later on in this judgment. But it must be pointed out here that what we are concerned with in the first branch of the argument is the question of waiver or abandonment of the plea of want of jurisdiction. The principle of submission to jurisdiction is in our opinion a different aspect of the matter which has been emphasised greatly in England because of the rule of common law conferring jurisdiction in all cases in which a defendant to an action can be served with the writ of the Court. Where such a rule exists, the aspect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsely remarked They are here, and if they are here they may he served . The critical question, therefore, is, in the case of a foreign corporation, that what is the analogous position to the physical presence which is requisite for an individual. The answer given by English law is that the only way in which an artificial entity can show its presence within the jurisdiction is by the transaction of business within that jurisdiction. To add precision to the above test the Courts have laid down two requirements: (i) that the business must have been done in England and not with England; the agent employed in England who may be a natural person or an artificial entity must have authority to enter into transactions binding upon the corporation and the agent's functions must not he merely to transmit offers abroad for acceptance or rejection by the principal; and (ii) that the agent must have operated at a fixed place of business for a definite period of time. However, neither the impermanency of the place nor the brevity of time would be sufficient to render the corporation immune from process. 20. It is in the context of this position of the English common law that the principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n depth, we think it would be appropriate to set out fully the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, for this High Court which are in almost the same terms as the Letters Patent for the High Courts of Calcutta and Madras also. The said provisions read as under: 12. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS TO SUITS. And We do further ordain, that the said High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immoveable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits; except that the said High Court, shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Bombay, in which the debt or damage, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in. India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. 24. It may be noted that under Section 20 the Court would have jurisdiction in case a part of the cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction, whereas under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before such a suit is filed leave of the Court is required to bo obtained. Further, judicial interpretation has established that part of the cause of action within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent must be a material part of the cause of action, otherwise leave should ordinarily be refused. Similarly the further provision in Explanation II which is found in Section 20 is not found in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The other difference is that' for exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court, Clause 12 talks of the defendant dwelling within the jurisdiction, whereas Section 20 of the Code requires the defendant to actually and voluntarily reside. 25. An analysis of the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge shows that the learned Judge was of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ference. It falls to us therefore whether the steps taken by the learned single Judge in evolving the rule are correct and ultimately whether that rule commends itself for acceptance and application. The basic question, according to us is whether the learned single Judge is right in holding that Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure only embody the rules of municipal law for regulating the internal domestic jurisdiction of the Court and would not apply to cases involving foreign elements viz. foreigners including foreign corporations. 26. It appears that the learned single Judge in the view that he took found support in the decision of a single Judge of the Madras High Court (Venkataraman J.) in Anant Narayan v. Massey Ferguson, Ltd. [1965] I Comp. L.J. 269 where it was observed that the criteria prescribed in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent governing jurisdiction of this Court are primarily intended to demarcate the sphere of jurisdiction of this Court and the subordinate Courts in this State or of other Courts in this country and are not directed to the determination of the jurisdiction from the international point of view . In the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal law and the provisions of Sections 592 to 596 of the Companies Act, it was held that the defendant No. 2 company was present in Madras. It was further held that defendant No. 2 had pleaded on merits also and had accordingly submitted to the jurisdiction. In our ease the learned single Judge appears to have accepted the reasoning of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court as far as the first step is concerned viz. that in such case jurisdiction had to be sought for in the principles of private international law and provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent (as also of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code) were not available, these provisions being only concerned with the internal regulation of domestic jurisdiction. 27. Apart from the Madras case where the main attempt on the part of the plaintiff's counsel was from the outset to sustain jurisdiction not so much on the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent but on the ground of the rules of private international law relating to foreign companies as defendants, the learned single Judge whose decision is questioned before us in this appeal was of the opinion that to hold that Clause 12 of the Letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vil Procedure. According to him, such an order for the return of plaint can be made under this provision only in cases in which the proper Court to which the plaint is to be represented is situate in this country. Now the plain words of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not warrant any such conclusion. The plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff who may then file it in the appropriate Court or not. It is not necessary nor required by the wording of that rule to indicate the Court in which the plaint is required to be filed. The return is further to the party and the Court is not required to transfer the pleading to a Court, which, in the opinion of the Court ordering the return, is the appropriate Court. There is good reason for the absence of such provision. It may be that the Court passing the order may not have jurisdiction; but there may be two or three Courts in which the plaintiff may have the choice to refile the suit. That discretion must be left to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff may choose not to refile the suit in the appropriate Court as it would not be convenient for him to file the suit in that Court. He may even give up a good claim on acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d restriction upon the exercise of their jurisdiction: (1) jurisdiction in rem (binding not only the parties but the world at large) by a court over res outside the jurisdiction will not be exercised, because it will not be recognised by other courts; (2) The court will not deal directly or indirectly with title to immovable property outside the jurisdiction of the State from which it derives its authority; and (3) Court will not assist in the enforcement within its jurisdiction of foreign penal or revenue laws. 31. It would appear to us that in the circumstances the question whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit would be required to be governed by considering whether it falls within the limits of jurisdiction prescribed by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and such jurisdiction cannot be sought with reference to any principle of private international law, English or otherwise. It appears further that the plain words of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent (and this observation would equally seem to apply to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure) cannot be restricted or limited (or even their ambit enlarged) by reference to principles of private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esiding out of the jurisdiction but carrying on business at a branch in Bombay through an agent was not liable to be sued in the High Court at Bombay where the cause of action had arisen wholly outside the jurisdiction, These principles enunciated in Kessowji's case certainly lay down the principles which could be availed of by the defendant and had that decision stood, the defendant could have certainly relied upon it for the support of its contention that the same principle as was made applicable to a foreigner should be applied to a foreign corporation and such a corporation was not liable to be sued in Bombay in respect of the cause of action which had wholly arisen outside Bombay. It appears, however, that subsequently a Division Bench of this High Court in Girdhar Damodar v. Kassigar Hiragar (1893) I.L.R. 17 Bom. 662 did not find the earlier decision as laying down good law. In Girdhar Damodar's case the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court was considering the provisions contained in h. 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (15 of 1882), which provisions are very similar to the provisions of Section 20 of our Code of Civil Procedure with slight differences. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, and was not even temporarily in Arcot when sued there, yet he could be sued in the Arcot Court if he carried on business through an agent in the local limits of that Court's jurisdiction. This assumption appears to their Lordships to require more attention than it has received. As far as the case of Girdhar Damodar was concerned, it was observed that the same was correctly decided; but, according to the Privy Council, this was because the cause of action had arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the British Indian Court in which the action was brought. With respect, it may be pointed out that this aspect is not touched in the decision of either of the Judges of the Bombay High Court in Girdhar Damodar v. Kassigar Hiragar. 35. Mr. Bhatt urged us to follow the observations of the Privy Council and reconsider the case of a foreign corporation which was sought to be sued in respect of the cause of action arising outside India. According to his submission, these observations in Annamalai Chetty v. Murugasa Chetty clearly establish that the decision in Girdhar Damodar v. Kassigar Hiragar had kept the question open and had not decided it in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbique v. British South Africa Co.: De Sousa v. Same [1892] 2 Q.B. 358, at p. 394 the following words were referred to with approval; the passage quoted at page 192 of the report in Chunnilal's case reads as follows: The question, whether the Courts of a nation will or will not entertain jurisdiction of any dispute, is to be determined exclusively by the nation itselfi.e., by its municipal law. If by express legislation the Courts are directed to exercise jurisdiction, the Courts must obey. If there is a proper inference to the same effect, the result is the same.' Reference was also made to an Allahabad case in Baroda State By. v. Habib Ullah where it was observed that if the case fell within the plain words of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must exercise jurisdiction and whether sanctity will attach to its decree as far as a foreign Court is concerned was a different question. The same observation would seem to apply to the jurisdiction conferred by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 38. We may now examine the authorities which were cited at the bar. In Guardian Assurance Co. v. Shiva Mongol Singh a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble property and suits relating to mixed actions, Section 19 deals with suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movables, and Section 20 with other suits. Section 20 declares in unambiguous language that every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction either the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain or within, the jurisdiction of a Court within the local limits of which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The legal consequences which flow from these provisions are(1) that a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, even if the defendant does not reside within such limits; and (2) that a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the defendant carries on business within its jurisdiction even if the cause of action arises outside it. In the ease before the Punjab High Court the cause of action had arisen in Pakistan. In spite of this admitted position it was held that the suit was maintainable in Delhi inasmuch as the defendants were carrying on business in Delhi. It must be observed, however, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rporation had got a branch office at any place, it must be deemed in the eye of law to carry on its business at that place irrespective of the nature of the work that was actually carried on there. These observations although uttered in connection with a case arising under the Code of Civil Procedure would seem to be equally apposite to a case under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. It may be mentioned that Babulall Choukhani's case was cited before the learned single Judge below and, according to him, since in that ease the whole cause of action had arisen in Calcutta itself, the case could be distinguished and had no application to the question arising for consideration before him. With respect, it must be stated that if it had been found by the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court that the entire cause of action had arisen within the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, then the entire discussion to be found in paras. 15 to 28 of the report would be obiter and unnecessary. It appears to us that the learned single Judge was directly considering this aspect of the matter only and the argument which had been advanced before hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree with the submissions of Mr. Bhatt. It has not been demonstrated to us, if principles of private international law were required to be applied, that there is a well-settled principle of Indian private international law which would govern the case, nor are we satisfied that the learned single Judge has evolved a principle of private international law which is improper in the sense that a more reasonable, more rational and a more just principle commends itself for acceptance. However, we find difficulty only in agreeing with the first step of reasoning which commended itself to Vimadalal J. In our opinion, the problem arising for consideration before us is principally the problem of application of municipal law enacting provisions regulating the jurisdiction of this Court and not the problem of application of any principle or provision of conflict of laws. This case which has come up for consideration and the question of jurisdiction which is directly involved is required to be decided only in accordance with Indian law i.e. in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 42. What then is the result of the foregoing discussion ? In our opinion, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as to make the enactment consistent with such doctrine. Where, however, the language of the statute is clear and does not admit of any ambiguity or more than one interpretation, the Court must give effect to the statutory provision as it stands notwithstanding the fact that these provisions will run against the commonly accepted doctrines of international law. 3. The word 'defendant' occurring in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be given its proper meaning and would include within its compass both natural and artificial persons i.e. living beings as well as corporations and no distinction is made in law between corporations as are incorporated in India and corporations as are incorporated outside India i.e. foreign corporations. 4. Under the last part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent a suit can be brought on the Original Side of this Court if the defendant at the time of institution of the suit dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within the limits of such original jurisdiction of this High Court. For consideration of jurisdiction Under this head, the consideration whether the cause of acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rded as the defendant itself carrying on business within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. This branch may be subject to supervision and control from the regional office or even from the Head Office. This branch cannot control the defendant corporation in the sense that the Board of Directors or the Head Office does; but that in our opinion is not required to bring the case within the third part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent i.e. in order to answer the question whether the defendant carries on business. The branch obviously is not a forwarding agency in the sense that it collects proposals or questions for consideration of some outside agency, which outside authority takes the decision. It carries on banking business within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and normally this is sufficient; whether it does so in two rooms or an entire flat or an entire building would seem to make no difference. 8. In the view that we have taken, the proceedings taken under Section 582 of the Companies Act by registering certain details with the Registrar would at the highest have merely an evidenciary value. As indicated earlier, the principle of submission to jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be sued only at its principal place of business in India or at all other places of business i.e. where it carries on business provided the cause of action has arisen at such place. The application of the principles above enunciated causes no difficulty in the instant case. In the paragraphs of the plaint and in the title it has been averred that the defendant has a branch in Bombay. It has been admitted in the written-statement that this branch office in Bombay carries on its banking business. If the defendant then carries on its banking business within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and no other special fact has been pleaded in the written statement or sought to be proved before the learned single Judge, it would appear to us that the question whether the defendant carries on business in Bombay must be answered in the affirmative. The fact that this branch office which is within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court has been designated as its principal place of business in Bombay would put the issue beyond any controversy. It must be held by reason of the pleadings, by reason of the failure of the defendant to prove any further fact and by reason of the reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive. It would appear to us that the word 'rejected' in Section 15 of the Bombay Court-fees Act must be given a natural and wide meaning and not an. artificial meaning as may lie indicated by the provisions contained in Order VII, Rule 11. This is particularly because the suit in the appeal before us was dismissed on the preliminary ground viz. one of jurisdiction from which the plaintiff had to file this appeal on payment of full Court-fees which are over ₹ 7,000. It would not be fair to the appellant or to the respondent, who otherwise may have to reimburse the amount of Court-fees to the successful appellant, not to make an order for refund of this Court-fee if justified by the words of Section 15 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. Accordingly we think this is a fit case falling within Section 15 of the said Act. Mr. Andhyarujina points out that this would also be covered by Order XLI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as our order for continuation of trial of the suit would amount to a remand within the meaning of that provision and that provision of the Code is referred to in the second part of Section 15 of the Bombay Court-fees Act. Bearing all these considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
