Bombay High Court
Bata India Limited, Thr. ... vs M/S. Agroha, Thr. Partner Mr. ... on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
IRESH SIDDHARAM Digitally signed by IRESH
SIDDHARAM MASHAL
MASHAL Date: 2022.03.16 10:48:43 +0530
15.23.20 cra.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2020
BATA INDIA LIMITED, THR. ....APPLICANT
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.
GYANCHAND S/O. KATWAROO
MAURYA, GROUP MANAGER-LEG
V/s.
M/S. AGROHA, THR. PARTNER .....RESPONDENT
MR. SUNIL MAYARAM AGARWAL
Mr. Shyam Dewani a/w Mr. Chirag Chanani i/b Dewani & Associates
Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. Rahul D. Motkari Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022.
P.C.:
1) This petition is by Defendant to a Suit for recovery being Special
Civil Suit No. 9/2010 pending on the file of Civil Judge Senior
Division, Nashik. Application Exh. 33 is taken out by the Applicant
for return of Plaint on following grounds:
(a) That Suit claim is barred by limitation as cause of action
15.23.20 cra.doc
claimed to have first arose in 1997;
(b) Bundle of facts which lead to cause of action does not disclose
any material accrued to Respondent-Plaintiff for preferring Suit in
action and
(c) Even otherwise, Suit is barred by territorial jurisdiction.
2) As far as the last issue about territorial jurisdiction is
concerned, Mr. Dewani, has sought to rely on the Judgment of the
Apex Court in the matter of Swastik Gases Private Limited V/s.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited1 particularly paragraphs, 31, 32 & 55.
According to him, since the Agreement which is relied on, in express
terms confers jurisdiction on Delhi Court, the Court at Nashik is
barred from taking cognizance of the Suit claim as the said Court will
not have any territorial jurisdiction. As far as the contentions are
concerned, my attention is invited to Application to that effect taken
out by the Applicant vide Exh. 31 which was ordered to be filed on
08/08/2019 by the Court below in view of amendment to Section 9A
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'
for the sake of brevity)
1 (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 32
15.23.20 cra.doc
3) In the aforesaid background, said issue of jurisdiction can be
decided by the Court at appropriate stage.
4) Apart from above, it is required to be noted that said issue was
not part of the Application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code.
5) As far as the subsequent contentions in regard to the bundle of
facts and limitation are concerned, Suit for recovery is based on oral
understanding on sharing of tax incentives. It is claimed by the
Respondent-Plaintiff that incentive package scheme of 1993 permits
retention of sales tax for a particular period. According to
Respondent-Plaintiff, out of said tax liability, benefit of amount of Rs.
20,00,000/- was enjoyed by the Applicant-Defendant. By efflux of
time, same is due and payable to the Government which has resulted
into filing of the Suit.
6) Factual matrix pleaded in the Plaint based on which cause of
action is claimed to have occurred, in categorical terms establishes
lawful disclosure of such cause of action. Plain reading of the entire
Plaint depicts that facts and events narrated therein in express terms
discloses accrual of cause of action to Respondent-Plaintiff for
15.23.20 cra.doc
bringing Suit in action for recovery of amount of Rs. 26,00,000/-
with interest thereon.
7) As regards contention that Suit claim is barred by limitation is
concerned, from the rival pleadings, particularly as reflected in the
Plaint and written statement, it can be inferred that since the said
issue is mixed question of fact and law, can be gone into while
deciding the Suit on merit. That being so, no case for interference is
made out.
8) Revision As such fails, stands dismissed.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
