Coll 30/36 'Bahrain: claim of Yusuf Lutfali Khunji a Persian subject against Shaikh Hamad in respect of an ice factory' [‎38r] (75/340)

-7~
were due to r.Khiaiji but suggetited that M).is ginount should
he set off against Shaikh Hamad’s share of the building.
14. The solicitor’s now sent me a copj^ of their letter to
the Mv.ser dated the 12th January 1932. This is of little
interest arid recapitulates the demand for the payment cf
Fs.2,435/14/9,(i.8.,Rs.1,880 for half profits and Fs.555/14/9
for expenses incurred in 1348 and 1349),also saying that they
could not understand why the accounts were asked for. They
added that their client ’did not agree that Shaikh Hamd had
any right whatever in the building and in any event was not
prepared to discuss the matter unless his present claims were
satisfied’.
15. I now received the Secretary’s Endorsement TT o:209 d.ated
the 29th January 1932 forwarding certain letters from the
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. to the Foreign Office and from the Foreign Office
to the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. . In the first No:Z.7030/31 dated the
4th December 1931 from the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. to the Foreign Office
it is noted in Paragraph 3 that hr.Khunji had admitted that he
had refused His Excellency Shaikh Hamad’s original offer to
sell him his share on the same terras as those offered to the
Municipality. I am glad this point has been noted as it is
important. On the 27th February 1932 in my No:244 I reported
on the situation and pointed out,as mentioned by the Adviser,
that there only remained the question of the building and
payment of half the total profits made by the Municipality
during the year they worked the plant,which,I said,amounted to
some Rs.2000. Actually I believe they amounted to p s.1,880.
16. Later I addressed the Adviser again and asked whether the
situation had altered in any way. He replied stating that he
had suggested to I'r.Khunji’s solicitors that Shaikh Hamad’s
claim to half the premises of the factory An East India Company trading post. should be set off
against half the profits due to Mr.Khunji and that they had
replied denying that Shaikh Hamad had any right to a share in
the building. They admit ted, however, that their claim for the