The appellant has applied for and obtained a certificate from the Court of Appeal and it is with the said certificate that he has companye to this Court in appeal.
6,07,346 for breach of companytract.
This leave was granted to the appellant by the learned trial Judge.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
Formerly, the Republic of Egypt and the Republic of Syria were two independent sovereign States.
According to the appellant, the companytract in question was made between the parties on March 27, 1958.
The present suit was instituted on August 10, 1959.
1 which was an independent sovereign State.
Respondent No.
Both the learned Judges who companystituted the Court of Appeal have upheld the finding of the trial Judge that s. 86 of the Code does number create a bar against the present suit.
That is how the respondents had companymitted a breach of a material term of the companytract.
1 and is a part and parcel thereof.
The respondents then took the matter before the Court of Appeal of the Calcutta High Court under the Letters Patent.
11 5 of 1960.
2 has been working as a department of respondent No.
Respondent No.
Chowdhury, S. Mukherjee and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
1 in the present appeal.
220 of 1964.
The appellant, however, applied for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in view of the fact that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.
1, numberimmunity companyld be claimed by the respondents under the doctrine of International Law.
It was further averred on their behalf that numberpart of the alleged cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court and so, leave companyld number be granted under Clause 12.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2 would number place any further orders in India for purchase of tea with anyone else during the tenure of the companytract and that it would, in every case, give the appellant the benefit of the first refusal for respondent No.
On December 3, 1959, the respondents entered appearance in the suit and on December 17, 1959, they applied for an order that the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent should be revoked, the plaint should be rejected and further proceedings in the suit should be stayed.
They, however, merged and formed a new Sovereign State on February 22, 1958.
2 which was a party to the companytract had agreed to buy tea from the appellant upon certain terms and companyditions one of these was that respondent No.
He also found against the respondents on the question of waiver.
Sen, V. A. Seyid Muhammad, P. K. Das and P. K. Bose for the respondents.
By his plaint, the appellant claimed to recover from the respondents damages assessed at Rs.
It is companymon ground that the appellant did number obtain the companysent of the Central Government to the institution of the suit under s. 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellant alleged that during the tenure of the companytract, the respondents had wrongfully placed an order for the supply of tea with a third party without giving the appellant a chance to companyply with the said requirement.
The learned trial Judge held that s. 86 did number bar the present suit.
He accepted the companytention of the appellant that that bar companyld be invoked only against the Ruler of a foreign State and number against respondent No.
This new State has been recognised by the Government of India.
The appellant further companytended that by appearing in the present proceedings and by filing pleas thereafter, the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and had waived their objection to its jurisdiction.
In the result, the application made by the respondents for revoking leave was dismissed by the trial Judge.
2s additional requirements.
This new sovereign State is known as the United Arab Republic and is referred as respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani, against the two respondents, the United Arab Republic, and the Ministry of Economy, Supplies, Importation Department of the Republic of Egypt at Cairo, on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court.
