Skip to content


Bai Shri Majirajbai Vs. Narotam Hargovan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom672
AppellantBai Shri Majirajbai
RespondentNarotam Hargovan
Excerpt:
court-fee - written statement--set-off--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 111 and 216--construction. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. charles sargent, c.j.1. we agree with the opinion of the allahabad high court in amir zama v. nathumal i.l.r. 8 all. 96 having regard to the language of the concluding paragraph of section 11 and of section 216, that a written statement containing a claim of set-off must be regarded as a plaint in regard to such set-off, and is, therefore, chargeable with the court-fee which would be payable on a plaint of that nature.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. We agree with the opinion of the Allahabad High Court in Amir Zama v. Nathumal I.L.R. 8 All. 96 having regard to the language of the concluding paragraph of Section 11 and of Section 216, that a written statement containing a claim of set-off must be regarded as a plaint in regard to such set-off, and is, therefore, chargeable with the Court-fee which would be payable on a plaint of that nature.


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