1961 (5) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the respondent to negotiate the deal on certain terms. The bargain was concluded, and the appellant, together with another person, purchased the entire interest of one Major A. U. John by an indenture of sale dated July 10, 1946. The respondent instituted a suit, being suit No. 3718 of 1947, on the original side of the High Court of judicature at Bombay for recovery of his commission, amounting to one lakh of rupees, in respect of the transaction aforesaid. The suit was eventually referred to the arbitration of one Mr. W. E. Pereira, administrator of the estate of the aforesaid Major A.U. John, deceased. One of the defences taken by the appellant, as defendant in the action, was that the suit filed in the Bombay High Court, as aforesaid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is only necessary to notice the one challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit and to make the award a decree of court. It was contended the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, and that therefore, all the proceedings the effect of rendering the Court entirely lacking in jurisdiction in of the subject matter of the suit or over the parties to it. But in the instant case there was no such inherent lack of jurisdiction. The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ledgard vs. Bull ((1886) L.R. 13A. 134.) is an authority for the proposition that consent or waiver can cure defect of jurisdiction b....