By this chamber summons filed by the defendant, it is prayed that the plaint in this suit be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in appropriate court at Chennai and in the alternative to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law of limitation and that the plaint does not disclose cause of action for the reliefs claimed in the suit.

2. Some of the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this chamber summons are summarized as under :

(a) By an Equipment Lease Agreement dated 30th June, 1992 entered into between Plaintiff and defendant, the defendant gave on lease one Himson scragg SDS8 Texturising machine (hereinafter referred to as the said machine) for the period of five years on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. The said machine was installed at the factory premises of Garware Nylons Limited, an associate company of the plaintiff at Ahmednagar and the said associate company was using the said machine. The registered office of the defendant company is at Chennai. Defendant has one of its subordinate office at Mumbai. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the month of August, 1996, the said Garware Nylon Ltd suspended its operation. One of the creditor of the said Garware Nylon Limited filed petition in this court being Company Petition No. 5 of 1992 inter alia praying for winding up of the said company. The Plaintiff vide letter dated 19th June, 1997 requested the defendant to take necessary steps to recover possession of the said machine. On 5th September, 1997, the Official Liquidator attached to this court came to be appointed as provisional liquidator of the said Garware Nylons Limited and took charge and control of the assets of the said company including machine which was given on lease to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff though repeatedly told defendant to file appropriate proceedings in this court to get the machine released, defendant did not take any steps promptly. Only in the month of October, 1997, defendant filed company application praying for direction against the provisional liquidator to hand over the said machine to the defendant. Plaintiff thereafter requested the defendant vide letter dated 9th March, 1998 to take steps to obtain necessary court orders to take possession of the said machine. Plaintiff also alleged that due to such attitude of the defendant, the endeavour of the plaintiff of putting the said machine to use were being lost. By letter dated 9th March, 1998, defendant demanded amount of Rs.43,70,346/-from the plaintiff as arrears of the lease rentals. The plaintiff by letter dated 17th March, 1998 denied its liability. On 18th December, 1998, this court appointed official liquidator of the assets of the said company. The defendant thereafter demanded arrears of Rs.46,39,657/- from the plaintiff vide letter dated 4th April, 1998. Plaintiff once again denied the liability by letter dated 29th April, 1998 and called upon the defendant to take steps to take possession of the said machine.

(b) Defendant vide its advocates letter dated 16th June, 1998, called upon the plaintiff to pay Rs.88,28,637/- and stated that it was obligation of the plaintiff to keep the lease equipments at all times in its possession and control. Plaintiff vide letter dated 30th June, 1998, denied the said allegations of the defendant and denied the liability.

Plaintiff vide letter dated 19th December, 1998 once again alleged that the defendant had not taken any steps to get possession of the said machine. The defendant vide its advocate's letter dated 6th January, 1999, denied the said allegations and stated that the defendant had taken the steps to recover possession of the said machine. Defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay Rs.88,28,637/-with further interest. Defendant vide advocates' letter dated 29th January 1999 reiterated that plaintiff had failed to pay the outstanding amount of the defendant.