1. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) raised by the Defendants in both suits.

2. In Suit No. 632 of 2014, the preliminary issue was framed on 31st March 2016. Shortly stated the Defendants’ case is that while the Plaintiffs have their registered office in Mumbai, they also have a branch office in Delhi, where the Defendants have their place of business and where, according to the Defendants, the cause of action has arisen. Therefore, according to Mr. Kirpekar for the Defendants in this Suit, this Court would not have jurisdiction. Only the courts in Delhi would.

3. The Defendants in Suit No. 516 of 2013 take a substantially similar plea. There, the Plaintiff has its registered office in Mumbai. The Defendants are based in Kolhapur and they allege that the Plaintiffs also have office in Kolhapur, and that the situs of the suit should, therefore, be Kolhapur.

4. I have heard Dr. Saraf for the Defendants in Suit No. 516 of 2013, Mr. Kirpekar for the Defendants in Suit No. 632 of 2014, Mr. Kadam for the Plaintiffs in Suit No. 516 of 2013 and Mr. Kane for the Plaintiffs in S