Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member—The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, Shivpuri on 30.6.93 in Case No. 33/93 this appeal is preferred.

2. We have very carefully gone through the record of the District Forum. The respondent complainant is resident of Shivpuri. He purchased 10,000 shares as promoter share from the appellant and alleged to have remitted Rs. One lac through bank draft No. 342553 dated 19.9.92 drawn from Syndicate Bank, Gwalior and payable to Syndicate Bank, New Delhi.

3. To our mind the defence raised before the District Forum was no jurisdiction, has not been considered by District Forum Shivpuri. The appellant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction. The allegations are in written reply. In para the respondent raised the defence that—

“The respondent is a limited company and neither the registered office of the respondent is located nor the respondent carries on any business within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Also no cause of action if any or part thereof has accrued to the petitioner against the respondent within the local limits of this Hon’ble Court. The complaint is also totally silent as to how the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court has been invoked. The fact that the address of the respondent even in the complaint is of New Delhi only also establishes that the respondent has no place of business within the local limits of jurisdiction of this Court and no dealing could have taken place between the petitioner and the respondent within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The case of the petitioner against the respondent inter alia is that the respondent has not issued its shares to the petitioner inspite of having received money thereof from the petitioner and that the respondent have on the contrary given the shares against the money received from the petitioner to some other person. The cause if action for such transaction would be at the place where the money is given by the petitioner to the respondent.”

This part of the defence is totally ignored by the District Forum. Section 11 deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum, it reads—

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum — (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or service and the compensation, if any, claimed (does not exceed rupees five lakhs).

2. A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office, or) personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually or voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office) or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.”

At the most it can be argued that because the draft was purchased at Gwalior and it was sent from Gwalior, the cause of action in part arose at Gwalior. The Gwalior Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. The appellant non-applicant as per this provision at the time of institution of complaint were not actually, or personally working for gain at Shivpuri. They were also not carrying on business or has a branch office at Shivpuri. Only condition under which the jurisdiction can be claimed is permission of the District Forum or the opposite parties who do not reside or personally working for gain as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution that is