M/s. Rudraksh Laminates Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Vimal Inter Trade Private Limited

1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to order dated 7th January, 2022 by which the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali, Division Dindoshi declined to return the plaint to the Plaintiffs for its presentation in the Court in which suit should have been instituted.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the Respondent no.1-Plaintiffs, pursuant to purchase order placed by the Petitioners- Defendants, sold and supplied the raw material vide Invoice bearing Nos. 002076 and 003598 dated 24th May, 2014 and 3rd July, 2014 for Rs.31,44,799/- and for Rs.7,53,399/- respectively. The goods sold and supplied by the Plaintiffs were duly received by the Petitioners- ANIL TIKAM Defendants and they had not raised any dispute for whatsoever nature regarding quality and quantity of the goods sold and supplied to them. Whereafter, the Defendants drew nine cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, in all for Rs.29,00,685/-. These cheques returned unpaid with remarks "Funds insufficient". Even after a demand notice, Defendants failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid sum or part thereof. The said nine cheques were issued and delivered by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The cheques were deposited by the Plaintiffs in their account at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The cheques were returned unpaid through their bankers, Bank of Baroda, situated at Vile Parle, Mumbai. Thus, to recover the debt and liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendants with interest, on account of dishonoured cheques, Plaintiffs instituted the Summary Suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The ex-parte evidence in the suit has been recorded on 18th January, 2017 and thereafter, matter was posted for judgment on 5th April, 2017. At that stage, the Defendants took out the Motion 2584/2019, purportedly under Order VII Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Trial Court to return the plaint to the Plaintiffs with a direction to file a same before the Court of proper jurisdiction. According to the Defendants, the City Civil Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter, since no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay. According to the Defendants, the goods were delivered at Bhiwadi, Dist. Alwar, Rajasthan and, therefore, the District Court Alwar will have jurisdiction. Alternatively, Defendants contended, that the purchase order governs the jurisdiction, inasmuch as clause 5 of the purchase order in respect of jurisdiction reads; "This purchase order shall be governed by law and Court in Delhi shall have ultimate jurisdiction to try any and all disputes arising out of this purchase order", and thus Court at Delhi is Court of proper jurisdiction.

3. The Learned Trial Judge vide well reasoned order, dismissed the Petitioners' motion. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this petition is preferred.

4. Heard counsel for the parties; perused plaint.

5. Be it noted that, the Plaintiffs instituted the suit to recover the debt and liquidated demand in money payable by the Defendants -Petitioners, on account of dishonoured cheques. The cheques were delivered in Mumbai towards discharge of liability and same were returned unpaid in Mumbai. The cheque is a bill of exchange and the suit based on dishonoured cheque is maintainable, as a Summary Suit. Therefore, though the goods were delivered at Rajasthan, pursuant to purchase orders, a part of cause of action equally arose within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay. As well, goods supplied to defendant, under invoices were subject to to Mumbai Jurisdiction only. This condition stipulated in invoices is qualified by word "only", and therefore having regard to facts, that order was placed by the Defendants at Mumbai; cheques were delivered at Mumbai; and cheques returned unpaid in Mumbai, it could be seen that there was a clear intention to confine the jurisdiction of the Court in Mumbai to the exclusion of all other Courts.

5. For all these reasons, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is dismissed.

6. At this stage, the request made by the Counsel for the Petitioner to stay the trial for a period of six weeks is rejected. (Sandeep K. Shinde, J.)