Jurisdiction in contract disputes is determined by the site of contract acceptance and performance, not merely the location of offer invitation.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts: 

1. This is an application filed by the defendant praying for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent by the Court, while admitting the plaint.

2. On instruction from his client, Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned senior advocate for the plaintiff submits that his client shall not file any affidavit in opposition and shall proceed on the basis of the existing record.

3. This is a commercial suit. The defendant has not filed its written statement within the mandated 30 days or within the mandated 120 days, as mandated under the amended provisions of Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . Thus the defendant has forfeited its right to file written statement in the suit.

4. The principal plea taken by the defendant in support of its application are quoted below from the supporting affidavit, filed in support of the master summons:-

“5. On a meaningful reading of the Plaint along with the documents annexed thereto, it transpires that the transaction pertains to supply of goods and alleged failure to pay consideration against such supply. Admittedly, the entire transaction has taken place outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court which would be evident from the following:

a. The Defendant had invited an offer from the Plaintiff for supply of galvanized steel structure by way of an electronic mail dated 7th August, 2020, which had been issued on behalf of the Defendant from its registered office at 18, RajRajeshwari Nagar, Gilet Bazar, Varanasi- 221002, Uttar Pradesh, India.

b. Subsequently, the Plaintiff had made its offer for supply of such galvanized steel structures from its plant at Uluberia, Howrah, India, by way of an electronic mail dated 8th August, 2020.

C. The said offer made on behalf of the Plaintiff had been duly accepted by the Defendant by issuance of purchase orders, by way of an electronic mail dated 22nd August 2020, from its office at the aforesaid address of the Defendant at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.

d. The said purchase order contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause vesting the jurisdiction of the courts at Varanasi for adjudication of any dispute arising out of the said contract for supply of the aforesaid goods.

e. In fact, the Plaintiff had further offered modification to the terms of the said purchase orders, which had been duly accepted by the Defendant from its registered office at Varanasi by way of an amended purchase orders issued by way of an electronic mail dated 26th August, 2020.

f. Against the Purchase Orders, supplies were made by the Plaintiff to Rajasthan at Malakhera Railway Station, Alwar, Rajasthan 301406, as stated in the plaint ie., outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The invoices were also issued by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant at its Registered Office at Varanasi, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

g. Payments were also made by the Defendant from its Bank at Varanasi, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

6. The only basis for the Plaintiff instituting the suit in this court is the alleged receipt of the purchase orders at its registered office and the alleged issuance of invoices from its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

7. However, from a true, correct and meaningful reading of the plaint, it transpires that the invitation to offer was made by the Defendant from its office at Varanasi, outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The offer had been made by the Plaintiff allegedly from its registered office, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, which has subsequently been accepted by the Defendant at its