SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1954 Supreme(Cal) 99

LAHIRI, J.P.MITTER
CONTINENTAL DRUG CO. LTD. , BOMBAY – Appellant
Versus
CHEMOIDS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. , CALCUTTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMIYA KUMAR MUKERJEE, MANINDRA KISHORE SINGH

LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule has been obtained by the defendants against an order made by the Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, 24-Parganas, in Title Suit No. 83 of 1953, by which the learned Subordinate Judge has decided the question as to whether he was competent to try the suit. The plaintiffs-opposite parties instituted the suit for a declaration that under an agreement dated 23-12-1950, the plaintiffs were the sole distributors of the defendants and also for a decree for accounts against the defendants and for recovery of certain sums of money as commission and damages. The agreement which was relied upon by the plaintiffs as the foundation of their claim contains a clause which runs as follows: "any dispute arising between the parties, settlement of same legally or otherwise, will be decided in Bombay. " the defendants raised a preliminary point to the effect that under the aforesaid clause of the agreement, it was only the Bombay Court which would be competent to try the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has held in substance that the agreement in question amounts to an arbitration clause and as there was no proper application under Section 34, Arbitration Act, by the defendant











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top