P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS suit has by consent of parties and counsel been tried on a preliminary point of jurisdiction.

( 2 ) BEFORE stating the preliminary point, it will be appropriate to refer to the nature of the suit, the claim made therein, and the admitted facts. In this suit a partnership firm by the name of Calcutta Motor and Cycle Company is suing the Dominion of India now the Union of India for a sum of its. 3,702-8-0 being the loss and damage which it is alleged to have suffered on account of short delivery of 483 pieces of bicycle chains out of a total consignment of 1000 pieces. These chains were despatched by the plaintiff from Byculla outside the jurisdiction of this Court to Howrah-outside the jurisdiction of this Court and which were intended to be carried over the two Railways of the Bengal Nagpur Railway and the East Indian Railway, neither of which runs through any part of the territorial limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. These two Railways are now State Railways. It is admitted that the cause of action for this suit arose entirely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. These are the admitted facts. The jurisdiction that is claimed in the plaint is founded on the allegation first that the Union of India in running these Railways carries on business within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court and secondly that the office and the principal places of such business arc at No. 1 Royal Exchange Place and 105 Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, which are both admittedly within the original jurisdiction of this Court.

( 3 ) THE preliminary issue that by the consent of parties and counsel is now raised for trial is : "does the defendant carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. " the point in the issue is, has this Court jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought against the Union of India where the cause of action has arisen wholly outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, on the sole ground that the Union of India carries on business within the local limits of such jurisdiction by reason of the fact that the principal offices of the railway administration are within such limits.

( 4 ) AS the facts on which the issue is raised are admitted, no evidence has been led.

( 5 ) THIS issue raises problems of great importance and far reaching consequences. But this is not the first time that such an issue has been raised.

( 6 ) THE preliminary controversy technically arises on the celebrated words in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this High Court,--"if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits. " Does the State, the Union of India in this case, "carry on business" within the meaning of the Letters Patents when it owns and manages a railway concent or a railway undertaking ?

( 7 ) ANOTHER incidental controversy is, even if the State runs a railway and is said, therefore, to "carry on business," does it do so at the place where the principal offices of the railway are situate ? This is important because only on the ground that such principal office happens to be within the original jurisdiction of this Court that this Court is said to possess jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.

( 8 ) IT will not be enough, therefore, to find that because the State runs the railway, therefore it carries on business, but it is also necessary to find that such business is carried on within jurisdiction on the ground that the principal office of the railway is within such limit. When both these grounds operate in favour of the plaintiff, then alone this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.

( 9 ) I will examine the problem first from the point of view of the liability of the State to be sued in its own Courts, secondly from the point of view of the State an carrying on any particular-business and thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document