New Stateman Press vs H.M.T. Ltd.
1997 Latest Caselaw 110 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Kapoor, J.

(1) The only short question involved in this matter relates to the question of jurisdiction.

(2) The learned Trial Court thinking (a) that ordered machines were to be manufactured at Kalamessary and it is situated in Bangalore, (b) that the defendant/ respondents have got their Head Office in Bangalore, and (c) that there was some sort of agreement in between the parties that Bangalore Court will have the jurisdiction, took the view that this suit could not be filed in Delhi and should be filed in Bangalore. The learned Trial Court did recognise the principle laid down in the case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, Jt 1991 (3) 337 that by agreement alone jurisdiction could not be conferred on any Court.

(3) There is no dispute in between the parties that the Head Office of the defendant/respondents is located in Bangalore and in Delhi also they have their subordinate office. The order was placed here and all correspondence took place with Delhi subordinate office. Notice was also served on Delhi subordinate office. The goods were to be admittedly supplied from Kalamessary which is located undisputedly in Kerala. Nothing was to be done at Bangalore. According to the judgment of the learned Trial Court, also no cause of action arose at Bangalore. The parties even if they wanted could not confer jurisdiction on Bangalore Court especially in terms of Patel Roadway Limited v. Prasad Trading Company (supra). Though the entire judgment is relevant, yet the matter is succinctly concluded in Para 15 of the judgment. It reads as under : "15.In view of the matter since in the instant two cases Clause (c) is not attracted to confer jurisdiction on Courts at Bombay and the appellant has admittedly its subordinate office at the respective places where the goods in these two cases were delivered to it for purposes of transport the Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the suits filed by the respondents and the parties could not confer jurisdiction on the Court at Bombay by an agreement. Accordingly no exception can be taken to the findings in this behalf recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court in these two cases."

(4) In view of the foregoing it is apparent that Bangalore Courts have no jurisdiction. There is no agreement that the suit should have been filed at Kalamessary. A part of cause of action did occur in Delhi. Hmt has got a subordinate office in Delhi in terms of explanation of Section 20 of Civil Procedure Code Consequently, I feel that revision petition has to be allowed. It is allowed accordingly. The impugned order is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

(5) Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 11th March, 1997.

(6) A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned through learned District Judge for information and to proceed in accordance with law.