9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the defendant at Mumbai. The payments were made by the cheques and the cheques were en-cashed at Neyveli. In order to invoke Clause (c) of Sub Section 1 of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is sufficient if the plaintiff is able to demonstrate that at least part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the fact that the offer was made from Neyveli and it was accepted without any reservation coupled with the fact that the Cheques were encashed at Neyveli would definitely amount to part of the cause of action arising at Neyveli within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
Conclusion - Jurisdiction can be established where part of the cause of action arises, and that a valid contract and acknowledgment of liability are sufficient grounds for awarding a decree for unpaid dues.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry to settle the outstanding loan. Contending that the defendants failure to pay the rents is unjust and that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Cuddalore, the plaintiff had sued for recovery of money as aforesaid. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the District Court at Cuddalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to the defendants, the suit should have been instituted either at Mumbai where the defendants' Company is carrying on business or at Bellary or at Cudappah where the machinery was actually put into use. It was claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants would further contend that the defendants have not produced his statement of accounts to show non-payment. 4.1. It was claimed that the plaint is vague and ambiguous. The very agreement to pay the rent at Rs.4,25,000/- per month was disputed. It was contended that there was a breach of contract on the side of the plaintiff. It was claimed that there was no notice to the defendants. It was claimed that the plaintiff had not obtained the approval of the Competent Officer for the bills and therefore, the bills were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Chirag Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. Mr. P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that though the machine was hired which was not put to use for throughout the hire period. The learned counsel would submit that the machine had broke down at Cudappah and therefore, as per the contract between the parties as evidenced by Ex.A2, the defendants are not liable to pay if there is a break down for more than a day. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since the machinery broke down, the plaintiff is not entitled to rents as per the agreement. The learned counsel would also further submit that the machinery was not used at Bellary, since the scope of the contract was modified by the Principal at Bellary, out of goodwill and in view of the long standing relationship between the parties, the defendants had transported the machinery to Cudappah and used it there. This was done only with a view to honour the commitment under the agreement. 10. It is also the further submission of the learned counsel that mere en-cashment of cheque at Neyveli woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel, there is no cause for us to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. 13. We have considered the rival submissions. 14. On the rival contentions, the following points emerged for determination in the Appeal: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for money as prayed for; and 2. Whether the District Court, Cuddalore had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Point No.1: 15. The contract for hiring the machinery has been admitted. An offer was made by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 on 08.10.2007 and the same was accepted by the defendants under Ex.A2 on 16.10.2007. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was also delivered at Bellary, the work site suggested by the defendants and it was put in use at Bellary, nearly for four months. Thereafter the vehicle was shifted to Cudappah by the Defendants and it was put in use at Cudappah. When the rents were not paid, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 19.01.2010, the same was replied to under Exs.A8 and A9. In neither of the reply notices is there any claim regarding the fact that the machine has broken down. In fact there is a categorical admission in Ex.A8 that the machine was put to use at Bellary. 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enables the plaintiff to institute a suit at a Court within whose jurisdiction, the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. In the case on hand, the offer was made by the plaintiff from Neyveli within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The same was accepted by the defendant. Payments were made by Cheques and the Cheques were en-cashed through the plaintiff's Banker at Neyveli. Therefore, at least part of the cause of action had arisen at Neyveli within the jurisdiction of District Court, Cuddalore. 16.1. The Common Law Rule in England that a debtor should seek the creditor has been accepted and followed in India also. In the case on hand, it is seen that the cheque was en-cashed at Neyveli within the jurisdiction of the Trial Court viz. the Principal District Court, Cuddalore. Therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore. 16.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.B.C.Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and another v. A.P.Agencies, Salem, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 163, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2000) SC 2966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the expression "cause of action" as follows: "In legal parlance the expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person." In view of the above meaning assigned to a term "cause of action" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the fact that an offer was made from Neyveli, its acceptance and the fact that the cheques were en-cashed through the plaintiff's Banker at Neyveli would itself amount to a part of the "cause of action" for the suit for recovery of money, investing the jurisdiction to try it in the Principal District Court Cuddalore. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of jurisdiction also. 17. Hence the Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
