[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Vhyom Mines And Minerals Private ... vs Jharkhand Ispat Private Limited on 1 April, 2026
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
OCD-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
APOT/10/2026
IA No. GA-COM/1/2026, GA-COM/2/2026
VHYOM MINES AND MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED
-Vs-
JHARKHAND ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
-AND-
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI
For the Appellant : Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Trisha De, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Bachar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Adv.
Mr. Pallab Samajdar, Adv.
Mr. Dripto Majumdar, Adv.
HEARD ON : 01.04.2026
DELIVERED ON : 01.04.2026
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. IA No. GA-COM/1/2026 is an application for condonation of
delay.
2. The delay is of 250 days in making and filing the appeal.
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
3. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant makes
out a case that, it engaged the present advocate-on-record for
the purpose of preferring an appeal. The certified copy of the
impugned judgment and order was lost in the office of the
advocate-on-record. It was thereafter reapplied for. Hence, the
delay.
4. Purely on the principle that, fault of the advocate, if any, should
not visit the litigant, we are inclined to accept the causes shown
for condonation of delay as sufficient.
5. Delay of 250 days in making and filing the appeal in condoned.
6. IA No. GA-COM/1/2026 is disposed of.
7. Appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated May
21, 2025 passed in IA GA /5/2022 in CS-COM/301/2024 [Old
No. CS/171/2021].
8. By the impugned judgement and order, learned Single Judge
allowed IA GA/5/2025 of the respondent by directing the plaint
to be returned by the plaintiff being presented before the
appropriate Court.
9. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the
appellant and the respondent entered into a contract for the
supply of materials. He refers to the pleadings in the plaint. He
submits that the contract was entered into between the parties
at the corporate office of the respondent at Room No. 310, 3 rd
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
floor, 41-A, Acharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, Taltala,
Kolkata-700014.
10. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that
learned Trial Judge proceeded on the basis of the invoices in
respect of materials already sold and delivered. He submits that
the forum selection clause, in the invoices raised by the
respondent, if at all, is applicable, then, the same is limited to
the goods already sold. He submits that there is no dispute with
regard to the goods already sold by the respondent to the
appellant. He points out that, the appellant is seeking refund of
the advance made by the appellant to the respondent for which
the respondent did not supply and alternatively supply of goods
and in the further alternative damages.
11. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since
the forum selection clause does not cover the entire transaction
learned Trial Judge erred in directing the return of the plaint on
such basis. He submits that the pleadings in the plaint are
required to be taken as true and correct while dealing with an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. On reading of the plaint and treating the
averments therein as true and correct, it cannot be said that,
this Court does not possess requisite jurisdiction.
12. Respondent is represented.
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
13. Appellant as the plaintiff filed the suit which contains a money
claim. Pleadings in the plaint are that, appellant and the
respondent entered into negotiations by which, the respondent
was required to supply certain specified goods to the appellant at
an agreed price. The appellant paid a specified amount as way of
advance for such goods. The respondent supplied a portion of
the goods and failed to supply the balance. It is in respect of
this balance supply that the appellant approached the High
Court for reliefs.
14. Appellant seeks to attract jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court on
the basis of situs of the corporate office of the respondent as
lying and situate at Room No. 310, 3rd floor, 41-A, Acharya
Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, Taltala, Kolkata in this
jurisdiction.
15. According to the appellant, negotiations took place at such
corporate office and that a letter was issued by the respondent to
the appellant from such corporate office. Therefore according to
the appellant, a part of the cause of nation arose at such
corporate office.
16. In course of the hearing of the appeal, we requested the learned
Advocate for the appellant to produce any document so as to
establish as to whether, the respondent was carrying on
business from such corporate office. In response thereto,
proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
well as proceeding undertaken by the Central Bureau of
Investigation were sought to be relied upon. Such orders in such
proceeding suggest that the shareholders of the respondent were
located at the corporate office as described in the cause title of
the plaint. However, no document was produced before us to
suggest, let alone establish that, corporate office of the
respondent itself was lying and situates at the place as is
described in the cause title or in the body of the plaint.
17. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the appellant as a plaintiff pleaded
that, pursuant to negotiations between the parties, a letter was
issued by the respondent from its corporate office within
jurisdiction. We requested the appellant to produce such
document for our perusal. Learned advocate appearing for the
appellant, on instruction, submits that no such document was
ever issued.
18. Although it is trite law that, a Court needs to read the plaint
holistically and treat the statements made there as true and
correct, at the same time, Courts are cautioned to consider
invocation of jurisdiction of a Court on the basis of crafty
drafting.
19. In the facts of the present case, we did not find that the,
appellant was in a position to establish, even at the prima facie
level that, any part of the cause of action with regard to the
transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
2026:CHC-OS:111-DB
Court. Pleadings with regard to the cause of action, allegedly
arising within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, remains
unsubstantiated even at a prima facie level.
20. In such view, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order.
21. APOT/10/2026 is dismissed along with connected application.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)
22. I agree
(MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.)
sp3
