Skip to content


Kessowji Damodar Jairam Vs. Luckmidas Ladha and Khimji Jairam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom404
AppellantKessowji Damodar Jairam
RespondentLuckmidas Ladha and Khimji Jairam
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - letters patent, clause 12--leave to sue--part of the cause of action--part not material--practice--summons to rescind leave given--limitation act xv of 1877, article 178. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to..........case would be tried here in a manner more satisfactory to the plaintiff than it can be elsewhere: but that is not a matter for our consideration. the simple question is, whether such a material part of the cause of action has arisen in bombay as would justify us in transferring to this court a case which prima facie ought to be tried elsewhere. we think there is not. the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. We think this Court has no jurisdiction, and the order appealed from must be confirmed. The object of this suit, as set forth in the plaint, is to have the accounts taken of the Zanzibar business. The defendant, who was manager there, is charged with misappropriating money. Reliance is placed upon the fact that certain sums of money, which form part of the total amount with which he is charged, were misappropriated by him by means of certain misrepresentations made or directions given in Bombay. We do not think that that is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction. The mere fact that the fraud in connection with certain items in the account was effected in Bombay would not justify a change of venue. It is possible that the case would be tried here in a manner more satisfactory to the plaintiff than it can be elsewhere: but that is not a matter for our consideration. The simple question is, whether such a material part of the cause of action has arisen in Bombay as would justify us in transferring to this Court a case which prima facie ought to be tried elsewhere. We think there is not. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //