the relevant facts may be briefly stated.
the claim in appeal before the high companyrt was for about 26 lakhs of rupees.
c. setalvad attorney general of india r. j. and b. p. maheshwari for the respondent.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated march 14 1956 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 94 of 1955.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 417 of 1957.
50 lakhs by way of damages for wrongful termination of the agreement.
the appellant thereupon filed a suit on the original side of the bombay high companyrt claiming rs.
133 1 a of the companystitution.
the said monthly remuneration or salary shall accrue due from day to day but shall be payable by the companypany to the firm monthly on the first day of the month immediately succeeding the month in which it shall have been earned.
eventually with the permission of the companyrt it amended the plaint and claimed instead rs.
the judgment of the high companyrt in appeal was in affirmance of the judgment of the learned single judge dismissing the appellants suit for damages and therefore it was necessary for the appellant to establish that a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.
porus a. mehta and r. h. dhebar for the intervener.
by a resolution passed by the respondent companypany in october 1945 chunilal mehta company were permitted to assign the benefits of the aforesaid.agreement to the present appellant sir chunilal mehta sons limited on april 23 1951 the board of directors of the companypany terminated the agreement of 1933 and passed a resolution removing the appellant as managing agents on april 23 1951.
march 5.
chunilal mehta company bombay were appointed managing agents of the respondent companypany for a term of 21 years by an agreement dated june 15 1933.
a. palkhiwala j. b. dadachanji s. n. andley rameshwar nath and p. l. vohra for the appellants.
being aggrieved by the decision of the high companyrt the appellant applied for a certificate under art.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mudholkar j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of bombay in an appeal from the judgment of a single judge of that companyrt.
