The main legal point established is the interpretation of jurisdiction and specific relief laws in determining the validity of a suit and an application for rejection of the plaint.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned trial court vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) for rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff/respondent filed civil suit No. 146 of 2008 titled M/s Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Deutsche Bank AG, seeking a decree of declaration that there is no EURO/USD Enhanced Target Profit Forward Transaction dated 29.6.2007 nor is there any interest Rate Swap Transaction dated 11.7.2007 (collectively referred to as the Transactions) between the parties.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that the defendant/petitioner is not bound by the transactions. Consequential relief sought by the plaintiff/respondent was, that the defendant/petitioner was not entitled to claim anything from the plaintiff/respondent under the transactions which never materialized.

4. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant, their agents, representatives, employees, officers from taking any action or initiating any proceedings or from recovering any amount from the plaintiff company on the basis of said transactions.

5. The petitioner/defendant on notice, appeared and filed an application for rejection of the plaint on the averments, that the suit filed by the plaintiff was patently false as the transactions were and still valid and were acted upon by the defendant and the plaintiff at all times and therefore, were binding and enforceable. Basic ground on which the petitioner sought rejection of plaint was, that the civil court at Ludhiana had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit for the reasons, that the suit filed is not maintainable under section 20 of the Code as the suit by the plaintiff can be instituted in a court within the local limits of which a defendant actually carries on business and/or whole or part of cause of action arose. Plea raised was, that the defendant/petitioner was a company incorporated in Frankfurt under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany and was having its registered head office at Frankfurt and was operating in India from its main office at DB House, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai, within the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay. Business with the plaintiff/respondent was transacted through its Treasury Department, situated in Mumbai within the jurisdiction of High Court of Bombay as per admission made in para No.17 of the plaint. The case pleaded was, that the jurisdiction of the civil court at Ludhiana was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff had its office at Ludhiana, whereas the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai and there was no transaction, whatsoever, in Ludhiana. Claim of the petitioner was, that it has no branch office within the jurisdiction of the civil court at Ludhiana. It was claimed that the transactions between the parties were entered into at Mumbai and therefore no cause of action accrued at Ludhiana. The case further pleaded in the application was, that the plaintiff/respondent had provided to the petitioner/defendant at its Mumbai office to assure the defendant/petitioner qua the validity of the transactions and underlying. A signed Declaration-cum-Undertaking dated 6.7.2007, inter alia to represent, that transactions did not involve any contravention of Foreign Exchange Management or Reserve Bank of India Regulations. Board resolution was produced on record as Annexure-B. Thus, it was claimed that transactions were entered into at Mumbai. It was further pleaded that all payments under the transactions were made to the plaintiff at Mumbai and that the plaintiff/respondent corresponded with the defendant/petitioner at Mumbai office only.

6. Second contention pleaded was, that the suit was barred under sections 1