9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. 2. Refusal of the plaintiff to accept goods sent by V.P.P. Analysis: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of an advance payment of Rs. 50 sent to the defendant firm for goods ordered. The plaintiff alleged that he instructed the defendant not to send the goods via V.P.P. and upon receiving them through V.P.P., he refused delivery, claiming a refund of the advance. The defendant disputed receiving any contrary instructions and challenged the Court's jurisdiction, contending that the cause of action arose in Madras, not within the trial Court's jurisdiction in Tiruvarur. The lower Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the refusal to accept goods but denied jurisdiction, stating the contract was completed in Madras where the money was paid. The plaintiff argued the contract was formed at Vijayapuram, falling under Tiruvarur's jurisdiction. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that the contract's place of performance determines jurisdiction, not the payment location. The lower Court's decision was challenged based on the argument that the contract's place of performance was in Tiruvarur, where the goods were intended to be received. The Court referred to Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates suits to be filed where the cause of action arises. It was noted that the contract's formation and performance location were crucial in determining jurisdiction. The Court cited a Bombay High Court case where jurisdiction was established based on the intended place of performance, as per the Contract Act's principles. The Court held that under Section 49 of the Contract Act, the debtor must perform at a reasonable place designated by the creditor, and failure to do so would establish the place of performance. Consequently, the Court concluded that the lower Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the refund of the advance payment with interest and costs.
|
