Skip to content


Jatiya Kalyan Insurance Society Ltd. Vs. Saroj Ranjan Chaudhuri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1939Cal489
AppellantJatiya Kalyan Insurance Society Ltd.
RespondentSaroj Ranjan Chaudhuri
Excerpt:
- .....of law and points of fact, and the arbitrator was, in my opinion, perfectly justified in coming to a decision as to whether the plaintiff was or not an employee of the company. the application is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:
ORDER

McNair, J.

1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., for setting aside a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes in terms of an award. The plaintiff in the Small Cause Court is the respondent to this application. He sued the Insurance Company, the present applicants, with whom he had been employed as General Manager. The Company were apparently dissatisfied with his services and an interview took place between the plaintiff and a Director of the Company at which, according to the plaintiff, it was arranged that upon the plaintiffs' accounts being adjusted and paid, and upon the defendant Company granting the plaintiff a certificate of having j taken over charge from him, he would resign, and he wrote a letter to that effect. The defendant Company thereafter passed a resolution purporting to accept the alleged resignation of the plaintiff. The plain, tiff in his plaint in the Small Cause Court alleged that he had tendered his resignation conditionally, that the conditions had not been fulfilled and that therefore he was still a servant of the Company. His claim was originally for salary, Calcutta allowance, commission and expenses. The plaint was later amended and he withdrew his claim for commission. The parties agreed that the matter should go to arbitration and the arbitrator on 10th November 1938 awarded the plaintiff Rs. 1690 with costs. The application for referring the matter to arbitration was signed by both parties, who asked that the case both on points of law and fact should be referred to the arbitration of the arbitrator. The present applicants who were the defendant Company in the Small Cause Court seek to have the award set aside on the ground that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. It is argued that if there was no jurisdiction to try this suit, there was no jurisdiction to refer it to arbitration and further that even though both parties consented to a reference to arbitration, that would not give the Court a jurisdiction which initially it did not possess.

2. The applicants have referred to Section 19(s), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, which provides that the Small Cause Court shall have no jurisdiction in suits for declaratory decrees. Learned Counsel for the applicants refers to the resolution which had been passed by the Company accepting the plain, tiff's resignation and he contends that before the plaintiff can succeed on his claim for salary there must be a declaration that the resolution was void. In my view this suit by the plaintiff was not for a declaratory decree. It was, as it purported to be, a suit for money in respect of certain salary and allowances. The matter was referred to the arbitrator on points of law and points of fact, and the arbitrator was, in my opinion, perfectly justified in coming to a decision as to whether the plaintiff was or not an employee of the Company. The application is dismissed with costs.


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