Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: .. 1..
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GR. BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH.04
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.172 OF 2019
Mettler Toledo India Pvt. Ltd. ]...Plaintiff
V/s
Jericho Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ]...Defendant
Appearances:
Adv. Amiy Kumar i/b King Stubb and Kasiva for the plaintiff.
None for the defendant.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE
ADHOC JUDGE
(C.R.No.32)
DATED : 03rd January, 2022
ORDER
Read the application (Exh.04). No argument of the
defendant. Heard the learned Advocate for the plaintiff. Read the reply
of the plaintiff filed at Exh.05.
2. By the present application sent by the defendant by post,
the defendant submits that the Court at Guwahati, Assam shall have
jurisdiction to decide the present suit and therefore, suit shall be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant has relied on the clause
No.18 of purchase order wherein it is stated that the Court of Guwahati
shall have jurisdiction. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff relied on
terms and conditions of sale at page No.29 of annexures of the plaint,
wherein it is mentioned that, the exclusive place of jurisdiction shall be
Mumbai. It is the contention of the plaintiff that on receipt of the
-- 1 of 3 --
.. 2.. Ord.below Exh.04 in
Comm.SU No.17219
purchase order the plaintiff issued two proforma invoice cum order
confirmation dated 12.04.2013 and 16.07.2013. In which clause No.19
specifically deals with the jurisdiction at Mumbai. By the rival
contentions and terms regarding jurisdiction, it appears that the parties
are differ on the point of place of jurisdiction. Hence, it is necessary to
consider whether part of cause of action has arisen at Mumbai.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is largest provider of
weighing instruments for use in laboratory, industrial and food retailing
applications. In view of the purchase order of the defendant, the
plaintiff issued proforma invoice cum order confirmation. The plaintiff
supplied materials to the defendant and raised tax invoices. On
25.03.2015, MOM was signed by the parties after completion of
inspection of materials for taking back it through sales return policy. By
email dated 22.07.2015, the plaintiff requested to the defendant to
allow the transporter to lift the materials and once the materials
reached to the factory, then request of refund could be considered and
initiated. The defendant by email dated 22.07.2015 asked for plaintiff's
undertaking towards refund of advance payment. Thereafter, there
were several correspondence between the parties. It is the contention of
the plaintiff that the defendant did not allow to lift the material, hence
the plaintiff issued demand notice for claim of Rs.11,87,721/ and
therefore, the suit is filed.
4. On the basis of contentions in the plaint, it appears that the
materials are sold, delivered from Mumbai. Invoices are raised from
Mumbai. Cause of action has partly arisen at Mumbai and therefore in
view of Section 20(c) of CPC, this Court will have jurisdiction. Hence,
-- 2 of 3 --
.. 3.. Ord.below Exh.04 in
Comm.SU No.17219
application is liable to be rejected. In the result, I pass the following
order.
ORDER
1. Application (Exh.04) is rejected.
2. Costs shall follow the event.
(Rajesh A.Sasne)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 03.01.2022 Mumbai.
Dictated directly on computer on : 03.01.2022
Typed on : 03.01.2022
Signed by HHJ on : 04.01.2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
05.01.2022 at 4.50 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. K.S.Bhosale)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI R.A.Sasne
(COURT ROOM NO.32)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
03.01.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 04.01.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 05.01.2022
-- 3 of 3 --