The situs of the head office of the respondent is a relevant factor for invoking writ jurisdiction of the Court, even if no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

K. J. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS was an appeal against judgment and order dated 8th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition holding that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed on receipt of affidavit on the question of jurisdiction. Naturally learned Trial Judge did not proceed to decide the writ petition on merit. The fact of the case made out in the writ petition is that there have been two agreements for sale and supply of raw materials viz. bamboo, hard wood, bamboo chips for manufacturing papers. One was entered into by and between one M/s. Durga Trading represented by its sole proprietor, Sri Kishore Saboo, the eighth respondent and the respondent No. 1 and another was concluded later between first respondent by the second petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 8 are closely related to each other. In terms of both the contracts raw materials were to be delivered at the factory of the first respondent situate at Kagajnagar in the State of Assam. However, disputes and grievances are primarily concerned with the contract between the petitioners and the respondent No. 1, because of, amongst others, linking with earlier contract. The first respondent invited tender to conclude contract with petitioner No. 1 and in response to this invitation first writ petitioner placed offers for supply of the required quantity of bamboo sticks and to be effected at the said factory site. On receipt of this offer of the first writ petitioner the first respondent placed work order in writing stipulating various terms and conditions and also adopting few of the terms and conditions contained in the tender document. The said work order was accepted by the first writ petitioner and thereafter a formal bilateral agreement was entered into by the first writ petitioner and first respondent. Pursuant to the condition of the tender document and the work order the first writ petitioner deposited security at the rate of Rs. 20/- per metric ton. According to the writ petitioners the first writ petitioner had been supplying raw materials in terms of the contract. However, the first respondent most wrongfully and illegally terminated the said contract, also failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of price of the goods sold delivered. Following cancellation of the contract the first respondent invoked risk purchase clause and asked both the writ petitioners for making payment for the loss on account of purchase at a higher price.

( 2 ) NORMALLY the point of jurisdiction has to be dealt with going by the statement and averment made in the writ petition but in this case the affidavit was filed on the question of jurisdiction only, as such, the learned Trial Judge had taken note of not only the statement and averment in the writ petition but also the same made in the affidavit-in-opposition. In order to invoke jurisdiction of this Court it appears in the clause title that the petitioners have stated that the respondent No. l has its head office at 75c, Park Street, Rubi Building, kolkata- 700 016 and also its officials viz. respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at 75c, park Street, Kolkata- 700 016. However, it is stated that the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were also officials of the first respondent and their office is at Nagaon paper Mill, Kagajnagar, Assam outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In order to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court it is alleged in paragraph 45 of the petition that the office of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The contract in question involving both the petitioners was executed on behalf of the petitioner at 40, Strand Road, Kolkata- 700 001 within the aforesaid jurisdiction of this hon'ble Court. Moreover, all the communications from the respondents including the impugned notice dated 21st June, 2005 were addressed to and re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document