Back
Bombay High Court
S.S. SHINDE, J.
Videocon Industries Ltd.
Vs
Rajesh Kumar Kedia
Decided On : 14/2/2013
Where no part of cause of action taken place within jurisdiction of Court at Aurangabad therefore Court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for recovery. - The trial Court has rightly adjudicated the point of jurisdiction at the threshold after perusing the documents/evidence placed on record. The trial Court has adverted to various documents and after considering the said documents, view is taken by the trial Court that the said Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Upon careful perusal of the aforementioned provisions of Section 20 of CPC, in the facts of this case, it will have to be held that none of the clause would come to the aid of the plaintiff to hold that the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction to try the suit. The respondent herein is residing at Durga Market, Katrasagarh, Dhanbad (Jharkhand State). The cause of action, wholly or in part, has not arisen within the jurisdiction of Aurangabad Court. The entire transactions have taken place at the place of defendant. A Court can have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in case, the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain or actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within territorial jurisdiction of such Court.
In the facts of the case in hand, as observed earlier, the plaintiff has not brought anything on record to show that there is an agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant that the Court at Aurangabad will have jurisdiction alone, in case some dispute arises. Mere mentioning on the top of invoices as’’ subject to Aurangabad jurisdiction only’’ will not confer jurisdiction on the Court. The same view is reiterated by the Supreme Court in cases of M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Rama Mishra, AIR 2002 SC 2402, New Moga Transport Co., 2004 (5) All MR 617 (SC). The counsel for the revision applicant, in support of his contention that since it is mentioned on the top of invoices as "subject to Aurangabad jurisdiction only", placed reliance upon reported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of New Moga Transport Co., 2004 (5) All MR 617 (SC). Upon careful reading of para 14 of the said judgment, the submission of the counsel for the applicant, cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no agreement entered into between the parties in the present case that any dispute between them shall be tried in are one of such Courts which have jurisdiction.
Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Court has considered the case of revision applicant-plaintiff in the light of the documents placed on record and held that the defendant is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of C.J.S.D., Aurangabad. So far cause of action is concerned, all the transaction between the parties had taken place at Katrasagarh, Ranchi in Jharkhand State. The important documents like promissory note and continuing security bond were also executed between the parties at Katrasagarh, District Dhanbad in Jharkhand State. The cheque was drawn on S.B.I., Katrasagarh and it was presented at Ahmednagar. No part of transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of Court at Aurangabad. The trial Court has also considered the effect of the words "subject to Aurangabad jurisdiction only" on the invoices produced by the plaintiff and held that same is not sufficient to hold that the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction to try the suit.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
2. The background facts of the case, as narrated in the revision application, are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff company is carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of various electronic items such as Colour Television sets etc. and home appliances. The petitioner herein is Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff and he has filed Special Civil Suit No.94 of 2008 in the Court of 3rd Joint C.J.S.D., Aurangabad for recovery of an amount of Rs.43,74,361/- against the defendant.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that the defendant/respondent opened account with Ranchi Branch of plaintiff company and purchased goods from petitioner company from time to time. On 15th September, 2007, the accounts were settled between the plaintiff and defendant and it was found that a sum of Rs.40,91,611 was due and payable by the defendant to the petitioner/company. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No.94 of 2008 against the defendant for recovery of the amount.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that the defendant is the proprietor of the firm M/s Kedia Enterprises and the respondent is carrying on business of the said firm and looking the day to day affairs of the firm and, therefore, he is liable to pay the due amount to the plaintiff/company.
5. The defendant appeared in the matter and filed his written statement on record. The learned trial Court framed 12 issues below Exh.12A. The Issue No.12 is in respect of jurisdiction of the learned lower Court and, therefore, as per the order dated 2nd March, 2011, the Court has decided to decide issue No.12 as a preliminary issue.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed examination-in-chief by way of affidavit as contemplated under the provisions of Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code on 27th January, 2011 and the petitioner has also produced the original documents on record. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has heard the matter in respect of Issue No.12 and the Court came to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit and plaint was ordered to be returned for presenting to the Court in which suit should have been instituted. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 11th July, 2011 below Exh.12/A in Special Civil Suit No.94/2008 passed by the 3rd Joint C.J.S.D., Aurangabad, the petitioner filed this civil revision application.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the plaintiff has already filed on record an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and under such circumstances, hearing of Issue No.12 as preliminary issue to decide the point of jurisdiction was uncalled for. It is submitted that the issue in respect of jurisdiction of the Court is a mixed question of law and facts, and therefore, it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. It is further submitted that the trial Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit as per section 20(C) of the Civil Procedure Code since cause of action has partly arisen at Aurangabad and, therefore, the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff company is having its registered office at Chitegaon, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad, which is within the jurisdiction of learned Court at Aurangabad and hence, as per the provisions of law, the said Court is having jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant has handed over cheque of Rs.40,91,611/- on 23rd October, 2007 to the plaintiff at Aurangabad and hence, cause of action has also partly arisen at Aurangabad. It is further submitted that there is an agreement between the parties in respect of jurisdiction of the Court at Aurangabad. In that regard, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has produced the invoices
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
