2008 (5) TMI 741 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court based on the situs of the defendant bank's office.
2. Interpretation of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
3. Conflict between Division Bench judgments in "Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal" and "Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal".
4. Legal principles regarding the independence of bank branches.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court Based on the Situs of the Defendant Bank's Office:
The plaintiff instituted the suit in the High Court of Calcutta citing the location of the defendant bank's zonal office within the court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff did not invoke the territorial jurisdiction based on the situs of its cause of action. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the discounting or discharge of a fixed deposit receipt by the defendant bank was fraudulent and sought a decree for the maturity value and interest. The issue of jurisdiction was raised late in the proceedings, and the learned Single Judge entertained it as a preliminary issue.

2. Interpretation of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent:
Clause 12 of the Letters Patent allows the High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain within its jurisdiction at the time of the suit's commencement. The plaintiff argued that the presence of the defendant's office within jurisdiction suffices to confer authority to the court. The plaintiff relied on the "Steel Authority" judgment for this interpretation, which stated that if the defendant carries on business within jurisdiction, the cause of action's location is irrelevant.

3. Conflict Between Division Bench Judgments:
The reference to the Full Bench aimed to resolve the perceived conflict between two Division Bench judgments: "Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal" and "Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Santosh Kumar Agarwal". The "Steel Authority" judgment allowed jurisdiction based on the defendant carrying on business within jurisdiction, irrespective of where the cause of action arose. Conversely, the "Oriental Bank" judgment held that each branch of a bank is a separate entity, and jurisdiction could not be based solely on the presence of a regional office if the cause of action arose elsewhere.

4. Legal Principles Regarding the Independence of Bank Branches:
The judgments in "Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Harnam Singh", "Hansraj Bajaj v. The Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.", and "Agencia Commercial International Ltd. v. Custodian of the Branches of Banco Nacional Ultramarino" were discussed. These cases established that different branches of a bank are treated as separate entities. The "Agencia" case underscored that branches of a bank are distinct from each other and the head office, influencing the interpretation of jurisdiction in banking transactions.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that there is no conflict between the "Steel Authority" and "Oriental Bank" judgments. The "Steel Authority" case did not involve a banking transaction, whereas the "Oriental Bank" case specifically dealt with a banking transaction involving a branch outside jurisdiction. The principles laid down in the "Oriental Bank" case, recognizing the independence of bank branches, were upheld. The applicability of these judgments as precedents depends on the specific facts of each case. The reference was disposed of with this clarification, and it was noted that evolving banking practices, such as internet banking and at-par cheques, might influence future interpretations of jurisdictional clauses.