9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Cuttack Court 2. Validity of the plaint's signing and verification 3. Shortage and non-delivery of goods 4. Entitlement to damages and costs Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Cuttack Court The primary issue was whether the Cuttack Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that, as per the consignment note (Ext. E), only a Civil Court in Calcutta had jurisdiction. However, the appellate court found that the Civil Court at Cuttack had jurisdiction because the cause of action arose entirely within its jurisdiction, and the contesting defendant resided and carried on business there. The court held that the plaintiff was not bound by condition No. 17 on the consignment note Ext. E, as there was no proof that the plaintiff had agreed to this term. The court further noted that under Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), the competent court at Ranchi or Cuttack had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court concluded that the suit was properly instituted in Cuttack, emphasizing that the balance of convenience also favored this venue. 2. Validity of the plaint's signing and verification The respondent argued that the suit was liable to be dismissed because the plaint was not signed or verified in accordance with law. The court noted that this issue was not raised in the trial or appellate court. The plaint was signed and verified by the manager and power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, which was deemed acceptable under Order 30, Rule 1, and Rule 14 of Order 6, C.P.C. The court cited precedents stating that objections to jurisdiction are technical and should not lead to the reversal of a judgment unless they result in a failure of justice. The court concluded that the non-signing of the plaint by one of the partners was not a defect warranting dismissal. 3. Shortage and non-delivery of goods The plaintiff's case was that the consignment was found in a damaged condition, with a substantial portion of the contents pilfered. The plaintiff's representative demanded a shortage certificate, which was not granted. The trial court found a shortage of 68 pieces of washing soap but noted that the suit should be filed in Calcutta. The appellate court found a shortage of 3 kgs of washing soap and held that the plaintiff was not justified in refusing to take delivery on payment of demurrage and other charges. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a shortage certificate and that the refusal to issue it was unjustified. The court noted that the defendant's conflicting statements and lack of documentary evidence undermined their case. The court concluded that the non-delivery of the consignment was due to the defendant's refusal to issue the shortage certificate and their subsequent illegal demand for demurrage and other charges. 4. Entitlement to damages and costs The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the price of the consignment and the freight paid, with interest. The value of the goods was Rs. 700, and the freight paid was Rs. 93.90. The court awarded the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 793.90 with interest at 6% per annum from 11-6-1971 until the date of realization. The appeal was allowed with costs. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Cuttack Court had jurisdiction, the plaint was validly signed and verified, the defendant's refusal to issue a shortage certificate was unjustified, and the plaintiff was entitled to damages amounting to Rs. 793.90 with interest and costs.
|
