9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T No. 65 of 1999 (Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. v. Hindusthan Zinc Ltd.). Both the appeals are treated as on the day's list. 3. Both the appeals have been preferred from an order allowing an application of Hindusthan Zinc Ltd. (hereafter referred to as HZL) in which HZL had prayed for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and for rejection of the suit filed by Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gujarat NRE"). 4. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are as follows : Gujarat NRE has its registered office at No. 1 Clyde Row, Hastings, Calcutta-700022 within the jurisdiction of this Court. It manufactures metallurgical coke in Jamnagar, Gujarat. HZL manufactures Zinc in Rajasthan. HZL invited a global ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Part II offer i.e. price bidding. The part of the 'cause of action' which had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court were : 1) 'location' of the advertisement by Gujarat NRE in Calcutta; 2) the receipt of tender notice in Calcutta; and 3) the issuance of the offer by Gujarat NRE pursuant to the tender from its office in Calcutta. 5. On the basis of these averments Gujarat NRE filed a suit against HZL with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent praying for, "(a) Declaration that the rejection of the offer submitted in terms of the tender notice without assigning any reason is unlawful and illegal; (b) Direction upon the defendants to reconsider the offer submitted by the plaintiff in accorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gujarat NRE, should be disposed of on the basis of averments made therein. The learned single Judge accepted HZL' submissions that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He noted that the letter of rejection was addressed to Gujarat NRE at its Jamnagar office outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court also found that the balance of convenience was not at all in favour of the action being tried in Calcutta. The prayer of Gujarat NRE to file an affidavit-in-opposition to bring on record the facts showing that it would be more convenient for this Court to try the action was not allowed as the Court was of the view that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Having acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this question. In any event, it is submitted that the clause is contained in the contract which was yet to be executed between the parties. On the question of balance of convenience, it is stated that no opportunity was given to Gujarat NRE to file any affidavit-in-opposition. Had such opportunity been given, it is claimed, evidence could have been brought on record to show that the balance of convenience was in favour of the matter being tried in Calcutta. On the last question it is submitted that the learned single Judge erred in holding that the facts as pleaded for the purpose of attracting jurisdiction to this Court did not form part of the cause of action. It is said that having regard to the nature of the relief claimed, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. It is also clear even from a bare scrutiny of the allegations contained in the plaint that the balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of the matter being tried in Rajasthan. Tenders were scrutinized in Rajasthan, rejection took place in Rajasthan and was communicated to Gujarat NRE in Gujarat; the contract was to be performed in Rajasthan; the samples were received in Rajasthan; the samples were to be tested in Rajasthan and the earnest money was sent by a Bank in Gujarat to Rajasthan. In these circumstances, whether the samples were in keeping with the specification or not would have to be proved by witness in Rajasthan. In any event, it certainly cannot be contended that any witness from Calcutta would be necessary for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
