Skip to content


In Re: Sehamber Ram Tehal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 23 of 1907
Judge
Reported in(1907)9BOMLR362
AppellantIn Re: Sehamber Ram Tehal
Excerpt:
.....ground that the contract was not for work to be done but was in order to bind the accused down to work for a period of three years :- ;setting aside the order of discharge, that the terms of the contract were clear and brought it within the provisions of section 1 of the workmen's breach of contract act, 1859. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from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..........that here the contract is not intermittent and the accused agreed to work continuously for three years. but that is not material. the learned magistrate who has dismissed the complaint has held that the contract here was not for work to be done but was ' in order to bind ' the accused 'down to work for a period of three years.' the terms of the contract are, in our opinion, clear and bring it within the provisions of section 1 of the act. we must, therefore, set aside the order of the magistrate and direct him to proceed with the trial and dispose of the complaint according to law.
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. The terms of the contract in this case resemble in their main features those of the contract in Koonjobeharry Lall v. Raja Domney (1870) 14 W.B. 29, where a labourer had contracted with the manager of a silk factory for a money consideration, to work at the factory for four months in a year for a period of three years. The only difference between that case and the present is that here the contract is not intermittent and the accused agreed to work continuously for three years. But that is not material. The learned Magistrate who has dismissed the complaint has held that the contract here was not for work to be done but was ' in order to bind ' the accused 'down to work for a period of three years.' The terms of the contract are, in our opinion, clear and bring it within the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to proceed with the trial and dispose of the complaint according to law.


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