Jurisdiction in contract disputes depends on where significant acts occurred, not solely on contractual jurisdiction clauses.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Dheeraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Sanath Kumar Shetty K., learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Defendant in O.S.No.137/2004 is the revision petitioner challenging the order passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru on I.A.No.4 dated 14.02.2019 whereby one of the defences taken by the defendant is that the Court has no jurisdiction, was tried as preliminary issue and held against the defendant.

3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiff with the following prayer:

“The plaintiff therefore prays for a judgment and decree granting the following reliefs:

1. Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.25,22,811-00 as morefully set out in schedule ‘A’ herebelow together with future interest thereon at 18% per annum from this date till realization.

2. Grant costs of suit.

3. Grant such other and further reliefs.

3.2. In the plaint, it is contended that plaintiff is carrying on the business under the trade name M/s. Tanvi Cement Products in Mangaluru. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of PCC Poles and Spun Pipes.

3.3. Defendant company which is a Government of India Enterprise, had placed order for supply of pre- stressed concrete poles of specified specifications as per the following purchase orders:

i. Bearing No.ESGTU/LP-2000/00113 dated 23.11.2000

ii. Bearing No.ESGTU/LP-2000/00200 dated 06.03.2001

3.4. As per the purchase order No.i, defendant had ordered for supply of 630 numbers of 9 meter long 300 kg working load pre-stressed concrete poles at the rate of Rs.1,550/- per pole besides Rs.450/- as transport and loading charges.

3.5. As per the purchase order No.ii, defendant has ordered 629 numbers of 9 meter long 300 kg working load pre-stressed concrete poles with Rs.1,550/- per pole besides Rs.450/- per pole towards the transportation and unloading charges.

3.6. Plaintiff submitted that as per the purchase orders, plaintiff at the first instance, supplied 600 numbers of pre-stressed concrete poles which had been duly taken delivery by the defendant after due inspection and tests.

3.7. Plaintiff submitted bills of a aggregate value of Rs.12,00,000/- for the supply made between the period from 24.03.2001 to 29.05.2001. However, the payments were not made by the defendant promptly as per the accepted terms of the purchase orders. The defendant made payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as against sum of Rs.12,00,000/- that too after a long delay of 16 months which is in violation of the terms of the purchase order. Balance sum of Rs.9,00,000/- remained to be unpaid. 3.8. Plaintiff had also manufactured balance PSC poles and kept ready. Plaintiff was waiting for the defendant to take the delivery of the same, but defendant failed to take the delivery of the finished concrete poles of 30 numbers in respect of the purchase order No.1.

3.9. Plaintiff has been facing serious problems for keeping finished products inasmuch as the manufactured poles were occupying large space in the staking yard and plaintiff had also invested huge sum of money for manufacturing the concrete poles.

3.10. Plaintiff further contended that there was a penalty clause of ½% for the delayed period subject to maximum of 5% per value of the undelivered portion.

3.11. It is also contended by the plaintiff that the purchase order stipulated payment of 100% payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the manufactured poles by the defendant and plaintiff demanded the balance sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the defendant.

3.12. Further, said sum remained unpai