Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

1942 (4) TMI 16

round that the agreement out of which the suit is alleged to arise contains an arbitration clause. 2. By an agreement in writing made on May 12, 1941, between Shantiprasad Govindram Khandaria and Gopinath Mahadeo Tendulker described therein as financing and managing partners of the Orient Pictures, Bombay, and Mr. Ramdas Dwarkadas described in the agreement as the proprietor of Messrs. India Cine Laboratory, Bombay, Mr. Ramdas Dwarkadas who is the plaintiff in the suit agreed to supply raw films mentioned in the agreement to the other party to the agreement who are the defendants as and when required from time to time for a picture named "Sidha-Rasta". The plaintiff further agreed to process the picture in his laboratory, develop it and print it to the final finish. He was to charge the defendants a sum of ₹ 2,500 for complete developing and printing charges and supplying a Rush-print thereof as well as for giving facility of Moviola machine for editing purposes. This agreement is exhibit A to the plaint. 3. Clause 3 of the agreement provided that the defendants were to keep the negative of the film in the possession of the plaintiff in their laboratory. It was to b .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

77; 7,309-13-0. The plaintiff wrote three letters to the defendants, of September 1, 12 and 19, 1941. By a letter dated September 25, 1941, from Messrs. Rajpal and Rajpal, advocates, written on behalf of the defendants the defendants denied that the sum of ₹ 7,309-13-0 claimed by the plaintiff was due by them and set out numerous alleged breaches by the plaintiff of the agreement dated May 12, 1941. Thereafter the plaintiff filed the present suit. In the plaint he sets out the material provisions of the agreement of May 12, 1941, and alleges that from time to time he supplied raw films and carried out the developing and printing of the picture as and when required and that from time to time he sent to the defendants debit notes in respect of the raw films supplied and charges for the work done by him, and in paragraph 7 he sets out the further agreement come to on, June 26, 1941, whereby among other things it was agreed that the Bombay Film Laboratories should hold both the picture and sound negatives as well as the positive prints relating to the picture on account and on behalf of the plaintiff. The correspondence is then referred to in the plaint, and in paragraph 10 the p .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e denied the allegation that he could not carry out his part of the contract. He alleged that the negative of the picture was handed over by him to the Bombay Film Laboratories on June 26, 1941, in pursuance of the agreement which is contained in exhibit B to the plaint, and that under that agreement the Bombay Film Laboratories with the consent of the defendants agreed to hold the picture and sound negative and positive prints of the film in their safe custody on his behalf. He denied that he had released his lien or charge. He alleged that disputes had arisen between him and the defendants not only with regard to the agreement dated May 12, 1941, but with regard to the agreement recorded in the correspondence exhibit B to the plaint. He Submitted that the subject-matter of the suit comprised the disputes between him and the defendants both with regard to the agreement dated May 12, 1941, and the agreement recorded in the correspondence exhibit B to the plaint. He contended that the subject-matter of the suit was therefore outside the scope of the submission contained in the agreement dated May 12, 1941. Further he alleged that he had come to know from Messrs. Sevaram Tricumdas on .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

case a lease contained an arbitration clause. Some years after the date of the lease disputes having arisen between the parties a written agreement was entered into binding the lessor to take certain steps with a view to securing a better water supply and in some points varying the rights of the lessee as to the supply which the lessor had covenanted to give him under the lease. The lessee commenced an action alleging that the steps mentioned in the agreement had not been taken, and also alleging that the lessor had not supplied the stipulated quantity of water, and claiming an enquiry as to the damages sustained "by reason of the matters aforesaid." The defendant moved to stay the proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court held that as the arbitration clause applied only to matters arising under the lease, it did not cover the whole subject-matter of the action. As Mr. Justice Cotton said in his judgment the subsequent agreement imposed upon the lessor certain fresh liabilities and to some extent modified the rights of the plaintiff. 13. In my opinion the case relied upon by Mr. Vakil is applicable to the facts of the present case. I think that the subse .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||