1976 (7) TMI 169 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain and try the suit.
2. Whether the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court or waived the plea of want of jurisdiction.
3. Interpretation and application of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The impact of Section 592 of the Companies Act, 1956, on jurisdiction.
5. Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to long and continued participation in the proceedings, thereby waiving the objection to jurisdiction.
6. The relevance of private international law principles in determining jurisdiction.
7. The effect of the defendant's registration under Section 592 of the Companies Act on jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain and try the suit:
The court examined whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff against the Bank of America. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had a full-fledged branch in Bombay, which constituted the defendant in Bombay, and thus carried on business there. The court held that the jurisdiction of a court in India is to be found in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Sections 15 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court concluded that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction as the defendant carried on business within its jurisdiction through its branch in Bombay.

2. Whether the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court or waived the plea of want of jurisdiction:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by filing an appearance and a written statement on merits, and by participating in various interlocutory proceedings. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Bahrein Petroleum v. P.J. Pappu, which held that filing a written statement on merits while simultaneously disputing jurisdiction does not amount to waiver of the objection to jurisdiction. The court found that the defendant had consistently maintained its plea of want of jurisdiction and had not waived or abandoned it.

3. Interpretation and application of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Clause 12 of the Letters Patent empowers the High Court to entertain suits if the defendant carries on business within its jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides similar provisions. The court held that the plain words of Clause 12 and Section 20 cannot be restricted or limited by principles of private international law. The court concluded that the defendant, by having a branch office in Bombay, carried on business within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

4. The impact of Section 592 of the Companies Act, 1956, on jurisdiction:
Section 592 of the Companies Act requires foreign companies to register their principal place of business in India and the names of persons authorized to accept service of process. The court held that registration under Section 592 has evidentiary value but does not confer jurisdiction. The court found that the defendant's registration of its Bombay branch as its principal place of business in India supported the conclusion that it carried on business in Bombay.

5. Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to long and continued participation in the proceedings, thereby waiving the objection to jurisdiction:
The court examined the defendant's conduct in the proceedings and found that it had not initiated any interlocutory proceedings or prolonged the proceedings. The defendant had consistently maintained its plea of want of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct did not amount to waiver or abandonment of the objection to jurisdiction.

6. The relevance of private international law principles in determining jurisdiction:
The court discussed the principles of private international law and concluded that these principles are not relevant for determining jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the jurisdiction of Indian courts is governed by municipal law, and the principles of private international law cannot restrict or limit the jurisdiction conferred by domestic legislation.

7. The effect of the defendant's registration under Section 592 of the Companies Act on jurisdiction:
The court held that the defendant's registration under Section 592 of the Companies Act, designating its Bombay branch as its principal place of business in India, supported the conclusion that the defendant carried on business in Bombay. This registration had evidentiary value and indicated that the defendant was subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the decision of the learned single Judge and held that the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative, and the court directed that the suit be placed on the board for further hearing. The court also ordered the refund of full court fees to the appellant and awarded costs of Rs. 1,000 to the appellant.