8. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has
placed reliance upon the plaint and submits that the cause of
action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as,
inter alia, pleaded in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14 thereof. The nature
of cause of action pleaded in the plaint has to be understood and
read as true and correct while adjudicating an application for
return of plaint. Specific assertion made by the plaintiff is that the
contract was received by the plaintiff and had been executed at
the office of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of this Court. The
breach alleged by the plaintiff was notified to the defendant from
the office of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction. These are
sufficient to maintain the suit before this Hon'ble Court.
9. Accordingly, the application is totally devoid of any merit, frivolous
and should be dismissed.
DECISION:
10. The law is well-settled that while adjudicating an application
for return of plaint, the pleading that the Court where it is
instituted, does not have territorial jurisdiction, the Court must
take the statement made in the plaint to be treated correct and
sacrosanct.
11. The relevant paragraphs from the plaint of which attention of
this Court has been drawn by the plaintiff are quoted below:
"7. The said Siddhant Virmani, after understanding the
intention of the parties, brokered agreements between
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
the defendant and the plaintiff. In connection thereto, by
an e-mail dated September 13, 2022, the said Siddhant
Virmani forwarded 3 sales contract all dated September
13, 2022 in respect Crude Degummed Soya Bean Oil in
edible grade in bulk, having Argentina/Brazil origin for
October, 2022; November, 2022 and December, 2022
shipment for 500 MT each. The aforesaid sale contracts
bearing Nos. CLV-SEP/2022-2023/313, CLV-SEP/2022-
2023/314 AND CLV-SEP/2022-2023/315 were
received by the plaintiff at its registered office at 1, R. N.
Mukherjee Road, Martin Burn Building, 3rd Floor, Room-
302, Kolkata-700 001, within the jurisdiction aforesaid.
It is evident that the said contracts referred to the
shipment for every month and parties agreed that lifting
of materials would be done within 10 days from Port
Health Organization Clearance. Copies of the e-mail
dated September 13, 2022 along with the sales
contracts are annexed hereto and collectively marked
with the letter "A".
8. On the basis of the aforesaid contract all dated
September 13, 2022, the plaintiff agreed for commercial
terms for the October 2022 shipment & November, 2022
shipments vide agreement dated November 17, 2022
and November 24, 2022 respectively The said
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
agreements were signed and executed by the plaintiff at
its registered office of the plaintiff at 1, R. N. Mukherjee
Road, Martin Burn "Building, 3rd Floor, Room-302,
Kolkata-700 001, within the aforesaid jurisdiction.
Copies of the Agreements dated November 17, 2022 and
November 24, 2022 are annexed hereto and marked
with the letters "B" and "C" respectively.
14. From the very outset, there had been a delay at the
end of the defendant in keeping its obligations in
providing the shipment of CDSBO. Therefore, the
plaintiff on repeated occasions reminded the defendant
that time was of the essence and requested the
defendant to acknowledge the timeline and provide the
shipment as per agreed time frame. E-mails have been
issued by the plaintiff from its registered office at 1, R.
N. Mukherjee Road, Martin Burn Building, 3rd Floor,
Room-302, Kolkata-700 001, within the jurisdiction
aforesaid, to the defendant requesting the defendant to
oblige the terms and to provide the shipment within the
specified time frame. Copies of the e-mails sent by the
Plaintiff are annexed hereto and collectively marked
with the letter "E"
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
12. In the matter of: A.B.C. LAMINARAT PVT. LTD AND
ANOTHER (supra), the Honb'le Supreme Court had observed as
stated below :
"15 In the matter of a contract there may arise
causes of action contract was made or at the place
where it should have been performed and the
breach occurred. The making of the contract is part
of the cause of action. A suit on a contract,
therefore, can be filed at the place where it was
made. The determination of the place where the
contract was made is part of the law of contract.
But making of an offer on a particular place does
not form cause of action in a suit for damages for
breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an
offer and its intimation result in a contract and
hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose
jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The
performance of a contract is part of cause of action
and a suit in respect of the breach can always be
filed at the place where the contract should have
been performed or its performance completed. If the
contract is to be performed at the place where it is
made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there
and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
cause of action arises at the place where the
contract of agency was made or the place where
actions are to be rendered and payment is to be
made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises
where money is expressly or impliedly payable
under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a
contract, the place where repudia-tioh is received is
the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is
pleaded as part of the cause of action giving
jurisdiction to the court where the suit is filed and
that contract is found to be invalid, such part of
cause of the action disappears. The above are some
of the connecting factors."
13. In a suit for damages for breach of contract, the cause of
action consists of making of the contract and of its breach,
amongst others. Therefore, the place where the contract has been
made or the breach has been alleged would have territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to try it. This is not a case of
repudiation of contract, as the plaint case goes.
14. This specific averment, made in the plaint, as quoted above
would clearly demonstrate that the contract was made and
executed at the office of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction and
the alleged breach notified by the plaintiff from its office within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
15. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the suit
can be entertained and tried before this Court.
16. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the claim and rival claim of the parties in
the suit and all points shall be kept open for trial.
17. Resultantly, this application fails and IA GA-COM/4/2025
stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.
In Re: IA GA-COM/3/2025
18. This is an application filed by the defendant praying for
revocation of leave granted in clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
19. Since the application IA GA-COM/4/2025 filed by the
defendant praying for return of plaint has been dismissed with
reasons after hearing the parties in detail, this Court is of the
considered view that no further point remains to be decided in this
application considering the nature of reliefs claimed herein.
20. In view of the above, the instant application GA-COM/3/2025
stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
Arsad
IA NO. GA-COM/3/2025, IA NO. GA-COM/4/2025
In CS-COM/10/2024
A.R., J.
