Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh B Jain vs H.D.F.C.Bank Ltd on 2 August, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
RFA No. 704 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2017 (MON)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH B. JAIN,
S/O BABULAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR, M/S. MILLIONS SELECTIONS,
AMBICA CLOTH MARKET, NO.70,
D.K. LANE, CHICKPET CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BRYEN STIENBERG, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H.D.F.C. BANK LTD.,
B.W.S.S.B EXTENSION COUNTER,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally CHIEF OFFICER/MANAGER.
signed by
MALATESH
KC 2. EDC MACHINE RISK MANAGER,
Location:
HIGH HDFC BANK LTD.,
COURT OF CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 038.
3. BENGALURU AREA MANAGER,
HDFC BANK LTD.,
CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
RFA No. 704 of 2017
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2016 PASSED IN
OS NO.26401/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Byren Stienberg, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1.
2. The present second appeal is filed challenging
the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.26401/2007 dated
21.11.2016 on the file of XXVI Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH-20), whereby
the suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the
Court had no territorial jurisdiction.
3. Brief facts of the case which are utmost
necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
3.1. A suit came to be filed for recovery of sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- by the appellant who was the plaintiff
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
before the Trial Court claiming to be the proprietor of
M/s. Millions Selections, who is engaged in textile business
and having its business at Chickpet, Bengaluru.
3.2. He had opted for EDC machine which has been
supplied by respondents whose head office is at Mumbai.
4. Plaint averments were denied and Trial Court
raised necessary issues and ultimately dismissed the suit
on the ground that Courts at Bengaluru had no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If that were to be so, the
Trial Court ought not to have dismissed the suit, but
returned the plaint.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has
challenged the validity of the same and placed on record
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay V/s. Prasad
Trading Company reported in (1991) 4 SCC 270.
6. Sri.V.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 however supports the impugned judgment.
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
7. Having heard the parties, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
8. On such perusal of the material on record,
admittedly, plaintiff is carrying on business at Chickpet,
Bengaluru and machines supplied by the respondents were
put to work in his business concern. On the said aspect of
the matter, there were some disputes and plaintiff raised
the claim in a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in the suit.
9. Learned Trial Judge however after recording the
evidence of the parties and hearing the parties on merits
of the matter, dismissed the suit for want of territorial
jurisdiction.
10. The issue with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction is no longer res integra and same is covered
under the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay V/s. Prasad
Trading Company reported in (1991) 4 SCC 270 as
referred to supra.
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
11. It is not the head office of the respondents that
would matter in the case on hand to decide the territorial
jurisdiction. Ultimately it is the defendant's work place
situated in Bengaluru. Admittedly, defendant No.1 was
carrying on business in Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru.
12. Therefore, the Courts at Bengaluru had the
jurisdiction to entertain the suit on merits.
13. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and decree is
hereby set aside.
iii. Matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law after hearing
the parties on merits as the trial has already
commenced.
NC: 2024:KHC:30740
iv. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court
positively on 26.08.2024 without further
notice.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT: BHK
