LAWS(MAD)-1969-1-22

MOHAMED MANSOUR Vs. N ABDUL CADER ALIAS IBRAHIM

Decided On January 21, 1969
MOHAMED MANSOUR Appellant
V/S
N.ABDUL CADER ALIAS IBRAHIM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these special appeals instituted by virtue of our Jurisdiction over the tribunals at Pondicherry, involve only a short preliminary issue, the matter is not without some degree of interest. Very briefly stated, the appeals before us are by the second wife and her son of a certain Abdul Hamid (deceased) who was a partner in a firm with extensive transactions. As will be clear from the judgment of the Superior Court of appeal at Pondicherry, the action related to the alleged purchase of certain sovereigns made in May 1950, and it was established that the funds realised by this, namely, 873,000 paistres, had been paid to the Saigon shop, after advance deductions in the account of the shop at Hanoi.

(2.) UPON the facts of this alleged claim, which was, basically, a claim that the moneys of this transaction had been fraudulently suppressed in the liquidation proceeding admittedly homologated by the Court at Hanoi, the Tribunal of First instance (Commerce) at Pondicherry came to the conclusion that the Pondicherry court had no jurisdiction and that the present parties must seek further redress in the Court which homologated the liquidation proceedings at Hanoi alone.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this judgment, the present parties preferred an appeal to the superior Court of Appeal at Pondicherry. In the judgment of that court, the facts have been set out at some length. After stating the facts, the learned Judges of that court observed that the dispute was with regard to the transaction of purchase of sovereigns involving a considerable sura, which occurred during the existence of the company which subsequently suffered liquidation. This transaction ought to have been placed before the court seized of the liquidation proceedings, and should have formed part of the subject-matter of those proceedings. If, as contended by the present parties, there was a fraudulent concealment in that respect, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Hanoi. The Superior Court of Appeal also referred to Article 33 of the Bye-laws of the company, which explicitly states that all disputes arising between the partners during the existence of the company, or in the course of the liquidation operations connected with the affairs of the Company, must be submitted to the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the head office of the company is situate; here, admittedly, Hanoi. The appeal was dismissed, and these related Special Appeals have now been filed before us, one appeal from the main judgment of dismissal itself, and another from the ancillary judgment vacating the stay order in regard to garnishee proceedings obtained by the appellants.