SHANTA APTE Vs. SAILAPATI CHATTERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a summons by the defendants in the suit for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff. It raises some important and rather difficult questions. Briefly, the claim in the suit is as follows:

(2.) That the plaintiffs, by plaintiff No. 2 on behalf of both of them, orally agreed with defendant No. 29, on behalf of all the thirty defendants, at Victoria Terminus Station, Bombay, on or about September 19, 1944, that a company of artists led by the first (or female) plaintiff would give a performance at the All India Music Congress to be held the following December or January at Calcutta-the dates to be later specified by or on behalf of the defendants-in consideration of having their travelling expenses to and from Calcutta and a reasonable remuneration for their, and in particular, the first (or female) plaintiff's services, paid to them: and that the defendants did specify the dates for the purpose. That the plaintiff and her troupe did proceed to Calcutta but, according to the defendants, when they got there, they, and in particular, the first (or female) plaintiff, misconducted themselves (I do not use that term in the technical sense in which it is used in matrimonial cases, but in its more general sense) by performing badly, according to the defendants, on the first and only night when they performed at all, and by not performing at all on the other nights on which they were required to perform. The plaintiffs deny any misconduct, and, as I understand it, say that they were justified in refusing to perform after the first night in consequence of the insufficient and defective arrangements that were made for them by the defendants.

(3.) There the matter stands. There is no dispute that at some time or other there was a contract between the parties, and there is no dispute that it was broken by one side or by the other, by non-payment by the defendants, or by non or mal-performance by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who are carrying on business in Bombay, and apparently live at Khar, just outside Bombay, started this suit in this Court against the thirty defendants alleged to be the Committee responsible for the running of the Indian Music Congress, every single one of whom lives in Calcutta. The plaintiffs started their suit first, but not long after them the defendants filed a suit against the plaintiffs in H.M. High Court at Fort William in Bengal on the same subject-matter as the present suit, claiming damages greatly exceeding the sums claimed by the plaintiffs in the present case.