9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin territorial limits of current Court – Requirements of clause 12 are clearly satisfied once defendant is stated to be carrying on its business through regional office within territorial limits – Impugned order set aside and summary suit is maintainable under Clause12 of Letters Patent – Decided in favour of Appellant. - Appeal (L) NO.541 OF 2015 In Leave Petition No.109 OF 2015 In Proposed Summary Suit (L)NO.313 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-8-2015 - Mohit S. Shah, C.J. A. K. Menon, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Simil Purohit with Raj Panchmatia, Peshwan Jehangir and Himanshu Vidhani i/b. Khaitan Co. For the Respondent : None ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice) : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 June 2015 of the learned Single Judge declining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent for institution of the Summary Suit proposed to be filed by the appellant plaintiff against the respondent defendant. 2. The respondent defendant is a limited company with its registered office at Bhavnagar in Gujarat. The defendant, however, has its regional office in Mumbai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned trial J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business, or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at Bombay, or the Bombay City Civil Court. (emphasis supplied) 6. Section 20 of the CPC with explanation reads as under:- 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y carry on business through an agent or agents and, therefore, a defendant having a branch office or a regional office in Mumbai has to be treated as carrying on business in Mumbai. The Division Bench also held that where a company carries on business in Mumbai, the question whether the cause of action accrued wholly or in part within or without Mumbai is wholly irrelevant. 10. In the above case, the Division Bench observed as under: 3. The word 'defendant' occurring in cl. 12 of the Letters Patent or in s. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be given its proper meaning and would include within its compass both natural and artificial persons i.e. living beings as well as corporations and no distinction is made in law between corporations as are incorporate in India and corporations as are incorporated outside India (i.e. foreign corporations). 4. Under the last part of cl. 12 of the Letters Patent a suit can be brought on the Original Side of this Court if the defendant at the time of institution of the suit dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within the limits of such original jurisdiction of this High Court. For consideration of j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on business at several places may be sued irrespective of the accrual of the cause of action. Under s.20 read together with Explanation II, a corporation can be sued only at its principal place of business in India or at all other places of business i.e. where it carries on business provided the cause of action has arisen at such place. (emphasis supplied) 10. Though principle no.10 in the Division Bench judgment made a reference to explanation under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in our view, it is not necessary to dwell further on the Division Bench judgment, because subsequently in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel case (supra), the Supreme Court has rejected the argument of reading the explanation to Section 20 into Clause12 of Letters Patent, because section 120 of the CPC expressly provides that Section 20 shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. 11. In the above case before the Supreme Court, the respondent had the registered office in Bangalore and a corporate office Mumbai. Several disputes had arisen between the parties and an agreement was arrived at between the parties to settle the disputes. The settlement agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court. 13. The respondent submitted that the Bombay High Court would have jurisdiction under Clause12 of the Letters Patent, if the defendant carries on business within the limits of Mumbai. It was specifically contended that when the jurisdiction is invoked on the above ground, whether the cause of action has arisen wholly or in part within or without Mumbai, is wholly irrelevant. 14. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions and held that applying the explanation in section 20 to clause 12 of the Letters Patent would render section 120 of the CPC nugatory and otiose since section 120 expressly refers to sections 16, 17 and 20 and makes them inapplicable to the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent, is a special charter conferring jurisdiction on Chartered High Courts. When there is a special enactment such as the Letters Patent, which expressly lays down the criteria on the jurisdiction of the Chartered High Court, it is totally unnecessary and in fact futile to refer to another legislation such as the CPC (which is not applicable) to determine the jurisdiction of Chartered High Court. 15. The Supreme Court specifically held as under: 27. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
