Calcutta High Court

M/S. Anubandh Financial Services ... vs M/S. Amit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 29 April, 2025

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             ORIGINAL SIDE
                        COMMERCIAL DIVISION



Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao



                        G.A. (COM) No. 4 of 2025

                                    In

                      C.S. (COM) No. 717 of 2024



           M/s. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited

                                 Versus

                  M/s. Amit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.




           Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Sr. Adv.

           Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

           Mr. Deepnath Roy Choudhury

           Mr. Debraj Sahu

           Mr. Akash Munshi

           Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi

           Ms. Jyoti Rauth

           Mr. Souvik Kundu
                                              ... For the plaintiff.
                                        2


            Mr. Anuj Singh
            Mr. Dhruba Brata Basu
            Ms. Soni Ojha
            Ms. Sambrita B. Chatterjee
                                                   .... For the defendants.
                                                       '


Hearing Concluded On : 17.04.2025

Judgment on             : 29.04.2025

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The defendants have filed the present application being G.A. (COM) No.

4 of 2025 praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff

has not obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 as

part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for a decree of sum of Rs.

1,52,98,316/- along with interest.

3. Mr. Anuj Singh, Learned Advocate representing the defendants submits

that as per the cause title in the plaint, the defendant no. 1 is having

its registered office at 236B, A.J.C. Bose Road, 6th Floor, Kolkata -

700020 which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court wherefrom

negotiations and communications took place between the plaintiff and

the defendants. He submits that the post-dated cheques were

dishonoured and the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff issued two

demand notices on 12th November, 2020 and 25th November, 2020

upon the defendant no. 1 at its registered office which is the outside

jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Mr. Singh submits that from the pleadings of the plaint, it reveals that

the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of the dishonoured of

the post-dated cheques and demand notices which were served upon

the defendant no. 1 at the outside jurisdiction of this Court. He

submits that the Mediation Centre, High Court at Calcutta issued

notices with regard to the mediation process initiated by the plaintiff

upon the defendants at the address outside the jurisdiction of this

Court. He submits that on receipt of the notices from the Mediation

Centre, the defendants from its registered office which is the outside

jurisdiction of this Court requested for adjournment of the schedule of

hearing before the Mediator.

5. Mr. Singh submits that from the pleadings and the documents relied by

the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that a part of cause of action arose

outside the jurisdiction of this Court but the plaintiff has filed the

present suit without any leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent,

1865 and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate

representing the plaintiff submits that in the plaint in each and every

paragraph, the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that all the cause

of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Mitra relied

upon the correspondences exchanged between the plaintiff and the

defendants wherein it reveals that in the letter-heads of the defendant

no. 1, the address of the defendant no. 1 is mentioned as "Siddha Park,

99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata - 700 016" and the

said communications were sent to the plaintiff at the address 111, Park

Street, Kolkata - 700016, as both the addresses are within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

7. Mr. Mitra submits that in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has

categorically mentioned that the defendant no. 1 being the private

limited company having its registered office at 236B, A.J.C. Bose Road,

6th Floor, Kolkata - 700 020, outside the jurisdiction of this Court but

manging, operating and conducting its business from its office at

Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata - 700

016, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits

that it is the specific case of the plaintiff, that the defendants for the

purpose of expansion of their business approached the plaintiff at their

registered office which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Mr. Mitra submits that the loan amount paid to the defendant no. 1

vide cheque no. 250521 dated 5th October, 2015 of Karnataka Bank

Limited, Overseas Branch, 1st Floor, 1, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Police

Station - Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata - 700 017, which is within the

jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the defendants have

received the said cheques at their office situated at 99A, Park Street,

Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata - 700 016, which is also within the

jurisdiction of this Court.

9. Mr. Mitra submits that in paragraph 20 of the plaint, the plaintiff has

narrated all the facts between the plaintiff and the defendants but has

not stated that the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this

Court. He submits that though the registered office of the defendant no.

1 company is outside the jurisdiction of this Court but the transaction

between the plaintiff and the defendants were held within the

jurisdiction of this Court and as such there is no requirement of leave

under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865.

10. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the

materials on record. On 5th October, 2015, the defendant no. 2 in the

letter-head of the defendant no. 1 company had sent a letter to the

plaintiff wherein the address of the defendant no. 1 company was

mentioned as Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor,

Kolkata - 700 016 and in the said letter, the defendant no. 2 confirmed

that an amount of Rs. 1 crore received from the plaintiff for 178 days at

the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 5th October, 2015 to 31st

March, 2016. In the said letter, it is also mentioned that the defendant

no. 2 had sent two cheques payable at Kolkata in favour of the plaintiff

towards the repayment of the principal and interest amount. Likewise,

several communications were made by the defendant no. 2 to the

plaintiff from the address of "Siddha Park". The plaintiff through its

Learned Advocate had sent a legal notice to the defendants at the

address "Siddha Park" and the defendants had sent reply to the

plaintiff from the same address which is within the jurisdiction of this

Court.

11. The defendants through their Learned Advocate sent a notice to the

plaintiff on 28th November, 2020 wherein it is categorically mentioned

that the defendants are having their office at Siddha Park, 99A, Park

Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata - 700 016, P.S- Park Street and

have given instructions to their Learned Advocate from the said office.

12. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 reads as follows :

"12. Original jurisdiction as to suits.- And we do further ordain, that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the Defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits, except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed One hundred rupees."

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 prescribed that "if the

defendants at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or

carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits, except

that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases

falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in

which the depth or damage or value of the suit property sued for, does

not exceed one hundred rupees".

13. In the present case though the registered office of the defendants is

outside the jurisdiction of this Court but admittedly the defendants

were having the office at Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No.5B,

5th Floor, Kolkata - 700 016 and as per the documents and the

pleadings relied by the plaintiff, it is found that the transactions