2003 Supreme(Mad) 1581
Madras High Court
C. NAGAPPAN
Dhandapani Cements - Appellant
Versus
Binny Engineering Ltd., Chennai - Respondent
Decided On : 10/13/2003
M. S. Sampath for T. K. Seshadri, for Applicant; Mrs. K. Bhavadharini, for Opposite Party.
No part of contract occurred at Chennai.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 20(1)-Grant of leave to institute suit at Chennai-Question of jurisdiction raised-Place of acceptance of the contract is the place of making the contract which gives cause of action-Held, no cause of action arose at Chennai-Grant of leave revoked.
2. The applicant is the defendant in the suit and the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of an amount of Rs. 16,97,166.00, alleged to be due on contract and it obtained leave of this Court to sue the applicant-company by filing Application No. 1194 of 2001 and the same was ordered on 14-3-2001, pursuant to which, the suit was taken on file. According to the applicant, the respondent-plaintiff has claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the leave application that the counter offer of the applicant-company was accepted by the respondent-company at its Head Office at Chennai and thus cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai. It is stated by the applicant that there was no counter offer made by the applicant and the respondent-company has misrepresented the whole matter in the affidavit.
3. According to the applicant-company, it is manufacturing cement and the respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture and erection of cement plants and in and around September, 1997 the applicant-company made enquiries for erection of new cement plant and the respondent-company, on 17-9-1997, offered the applicant to supply the plant for a price of Rs. 31,86,000/- and the offer was sent by post by the respondent-company to the applicant at Tiruchirapalli and subsequently, after discussions at Tiruchirapalli, the price was settled at Rs. 28,17,000/- and the offer was accepted by the applicant at Tiruchirapalli and the contract was made there and the plaint documents filed by the plaintiff would themselves prove the above fact. It is further stated by the applicant that leave to sue has been granted only due to the false averment in the affidavit that the contract has been accepted at Chennai and hence the leave is liable to be revoked.
4. A counter has been filed by the respondent stating that the plaintiff-company submitted its offer on 17-9-1997 and a revised offer was made on 20-9-1997 offering to supply the Mill for Rs. 34,200,000/- and the defendant, instead of accepting the offer, made a counter after requesting the plaintiff to supply the Mill for Rs. 28,17,000/-and the plaintiff accepted the offer by its letter dated 22-9-1997 and the contract came into existence at the registered office of the plaintiff-company, that is, within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff's documents would prove the same. The respondent has further stated that the contract has been entered into at Chennai and the substantial part of cause of action has been arisen at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court and the present application is not bona fide and liable to be dismissed.
5. The respondent/plaintiff-company is engaged in the manufacture and erection of cement plants and on 17-9-1997, it offered to supply the plant to the applicant/defendant-company for a sum of Rs. 31,86,000/-. The offer was made by letter of the respondent-company to the applicant-company at Tiruchirapalli. Pursuant to the offer, discussions between the Manager of the plaintiff-company and the applicant took place at the factory of the applicant at Tiruchirapalli and the price was settled at Rs. 28,17,000/- and there itself, the applicant paid an advance of Rs. 7 lakhs by cheque dated 21-9-1997 to the Manager of the plaintiff-company and this is confirmed in the letter of the plaintiff, dated 22-9-1997, filed as plaint document No. 3. The applicant/defendant, in its letter dated 24-9-1997, which is filed as plaint document No. 4, enclosed a Demand Draft for Rs. 7 lakhs towards the advance and sought for the return of cheque given to the plaintiff on 21-9-1997.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant-Mr. Sampath contends that the offer of the respondent-plaintiff was accepted by the pplicant/defendant company at Trichirapalli and the contract was made at Trichirapalli