Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION No.2562/2019
IN
SUIT NO.450/2019.
Laxmi Metal Trading Co. ... Plaintiff
V/s.
Ranjit Kaur Khera. ... Defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. S.G. SHAIKH.
(C.R. NO.59).
DATE : 15.01.2020
Mr.Hitesh M.Shah, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate for Defendant.
ORDER
This is a notice of motion taken out by the defendant for
rejection/return of plaint on the ground of jurisdiction. The plaintiff
has filed reply to the same.
2. Perused the notice of motion and reply of the plaintiff. Heard
both the advocates for the parties at the length.
3. It is case of the defendant that defendant is an ordinary residence
of Hyderabad, pursue his business at Hyderabad, the place of the goods
in the Hyderabad and therefore, the cause of action has arisen at
Hyderabad. According to the defendant, the Court at Mumbai do not
have jurisdiction to try and entertain suit in view of provision of section
-- 1 of 6 --
5 N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
20 of Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. On the point of the territorial jurisdiction the pleading of the
plaintiff are as follows:
21. “'The plaintiff states that the cause of action to file the
present suit arose at the time when the said Second Cheque,
said Third Cheque and the said Fourth Cheque as against the
said Invoices were dishonoured on 18.12.2017. The present
suit is therefore within the period of Limitation'”
22. “The plaintiff states that the orders were placed on the
Plaintiff's address in Mumbai. The said Invoices have been
raised in Mumbai. The payment was to be made by the
Defendant in Mumbai. The said Cheques were sent by the
Defendant to Mumbai. The plaintiff submits therefore this
Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit.”
5. The defendant has raised the objection of territorial jurisdiction.
The territorial jurisdiction is governed by the section 20 of the Code of
the Civil Procedure, 1908. It reads as under:
'' Other suits to be instituted where defendants
reside or cause of action arisen – Subject to the limitations
aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where
there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily
-- 2 of 6 --
5 N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
resides, or carries on businesses, or personally
works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more
than one, at the time of commencement of the suit,
actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on
business, or personally works for gain, provided
that in such case either the leave of the Court is
given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry
on business, or personally work for gain, as
aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution;
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arisen''.
6. On careful perusal of pleadings and documents, it appears that
plaintiff has his office at Bhiwandi, District Thane. Though the
proposal of contract is made from the Hyderabad, the proposal was
accepted at Mumbai. The contract came in existence in Mumbai. The
suit is based on negotiable instrument i.e. cheque. It was presented for
encashment at Mumbai. Therefore, the Court at Mumbai has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.
7. This point could be explained with an analogy. Its proposal
came out side of the India. In such case the promissor can not allowed
to say that no Court in India to has such jurisdiction.
8. The advocate for the defendant relied on following
citations. They are discussed one by one as follows.
i) Arinits Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rockwell Plastic Pvt. Ltd.
(Delhi High Court decided on 20th December, 2007)
-- 3 of 6 --
5 N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
In this case, the goods were ordered from Hyderabad and were
supplied from Faridabad, invoices/bills were raised from Faridabad but
suit was filed in Delhi. In the case in hand the bills were raised from
Mumbai. The cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. For this reason,
the ratio laid down in the case is not applicable to the set of the facts of
the present case.
ii) M/s. Victoria Motors Pvt. Ltd vs. M/s. Rai Automotive Systems
(Delhi High Court decided on 6th August, 2014)
In this case plaintiff was claiming jurisdiction on the place of
payment of Sales Tax. This point is not relevant in the present case.
Therefore, ratio laid down in this case cannot be applied to the present
case.
iii) Unimers India Limited vs.The Ifci Limited and Ors.
(Delhi High Court decided on 13th April, 2002)
This citation is on the point of section 20(a) of the Code of Civil
procedure1908. However, in this suit, the cause of action has arisen in
Mumbai. Therefore it is governed by clause (c) of section 20 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, ration laid down in the
above cited case cannot be applied to the set of the facts of the present
case.
9. In these background, it is held that the cause of action to the
present suit has arisen at Mumbai. Therefore, this Court at Mumbai has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. Hence, this notice of motion
objecting the jurisdiction of this Court is liable to be dismissed and
following order is passed:
-- 4 of 6 --
5 N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
ORDER
1. The notice of motion no.2562 of 2019 is dismissed.
2. The notice of motion No.2562 of 2019 is disposed off.
(S.G.Shaikh)
Judge,
Date:15.01.2020 City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai.
(Court Room No.59)
Typed on : 15.01.2020
Signed on :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
16.01.2020 05.00 p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
Name of the Judge H.H.J. Sabiha.G.Shaikh.
Adhoc Judge.
(Court Room No.59)
Date of pronouncement of Order 15.01.2020
Order signed by P.O. on 15.01.2020
Order uploaded on 16.01.2020
-- 5 of 6 --
5 N/M No. 2562 of 2019
in Suit No. 450 of 2019
-- 6 of 6 --