1.1 Section 18: Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of courts are uncertain -: (1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, anyone of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction :Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court
having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice
1.2 Section 20 : Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arise -: 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 carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
3.1 FACTS OF THE CASE-:This is the suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs. 1,42,342/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of institution of suit till the date of realization of amount.
3.2 Observation of case : para 12: Thus, invoices are written contracts within the contemplation of Order XXXVII CPC where the contract pertains to sale of goods as invoices issued to the defendants contain detailed terms and conditions duly agreed by the parties, description of goods, quantity and price. Invoices issued by the plaintiff company reflect conditions of payment, address where the goods were to be delivered and all the features pertaining to a contract of sale of goods. Therefore, invoices issued by the plaintiff company in the present suit fulfill all the conditions stated in the judgment of Lohmann Rausher Gmbh (supra). Hence, the invoices are a contract.
3.3 Para 13 As regards territorial jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABC Laminart vs. A.P. Agencies, AIR 1989 SC 1239 has held that;”15. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place Page no. 8 of 12 (Neha Sharma) CJ-01/(South) Saket Court/New Delhi CS SCJ147/21 FFCO MC CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD. VS AGRI BUSINESS CENTRE ONE STOP CENTER where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have (been) performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of the cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors.”
3.4 Decision: The suit instituted on 04.02.2021 is also clearly within the limitation period and the court also has the territorial jurisdiction as the amount was payable within the jurisdiction of this court and the exclusive jurisdiction clause conferred jurisdiction upon this court.
4.1 Facts of the Cases : This application is filed by the defendants to revoke the leave granted by this Court in Application No.3075 of 2015 on 28.04.2015.
4.2 Case Observation : Para 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that substantial part of cause of action arose in Chennai, as all the above said agreements were executed in Chennai and the payments due to the plaintiff were credited to the plaintiff-Company’s Bank only in Chennai, including the payments under each of the above agreements as well as the payments made pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3 of the settlement agreement. It is their further case that part of performance of contract took place in Chennai, where the products of the defendants were distributed to 12 hospitals in Chennai. It is thus contended that only in Chennai, the plaintiff-Company issued instructions to their Bank(s) to stop RTGS transfer to the second defendant-Company, which was the trigger for arbitration, and therefore, substantial part of cause of action arose in Chennai and hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4.3 Para 10 : In this case, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. As the place of execution of contract/arbitration agreement, place of performance of the contract and the place of payments are one and the same viz., Chennai, the balance of convenience should not be against the plaintiff. For the purpose of deciding the balance of convenience at this stage, presumption is that the arbitration clause is void as it is only the averments that can be looked into. When the defendants have been carrying numerous activities within the forum, they cannot take the stand that the forum is a forum nonconveniens and presumption is in favor of the plaintiff in view of the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and also in view of the provision contemplated under section 9 of the code of the Civil Procedure.
4.4 Decision : The court held that substantial cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court for the plaintiff as against the defendants for maintaining the suit before this Court. Therefore, this Court finds that the defendants have not made out a case for revoking the leave already granted. Accordingly, Application No.3650 of 2015 is dismissed.
5.1 Facts of cases-:The petitioner is that the petitioner herein instituted the said suit for recovery of money of Rs. 3,51,333/- on the foot of a promissory note.
5.2 Case Observation : para 4 The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is that the petitioner is.a resident of Raichur in Karnataka and the transaction also had taken place at Raichur. But the respondent/defendant is resident of Gadwal in Mahaboobnagar District and hence, he approached the Court at Gadwal and filed the present suit for recovery of money on the foot of the promissory note. In this context, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 20 of C.P.C. and submitted that a suit can maintain either in the Courts at Gadwal or in the Courts at Raichur. As the respondent is residing at Gadwal, he has chosen the Court at Gadwal and the Court below ought not to have returned the plaint stating that the said Court has no jurisdiction.
5.3 Para 9 : The petitioner herein is the resident of Raichur in Karnataka and the payment of money also admittedly has taken place at Raichur in Karnataka. But the fact is that the respondent/defendant is a resident of Gadwal in Mahaboobnagar District.
5.4 Para 15 : Accordingly, this Court, while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.1 FACTS OF THE CASE : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 20 Recovery suit – Petitioner/defendant has not disputed that it used to place orders for supply of goods upon
the respondent/plaintiff and that there were business transactions between the parties – Allegation of dishonour of cheques which had been delivered at the office of
respondent/plaintiff at Kolkata – Objection of petitioner was that as no part of cause of action had arisen in Delhi, the suit could not have been filed at Delhi – Hence, present petition – Petitioner had made direct payments to the respondent in its ICICI Bank Account at New Delhi – Cheque had been delivered to the respondent at New Delhi office -When, the part cause of action has arisen also on account of the payments made by the petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis, since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had been fixed, even without following the principle that the ‘debtor must seek out the creditor – No merit.
6.2 Case Observation : Para 19. The learned Trial Court has followed the decision of this court in Satyapal (supra) that where the place of payment has not been fixed, as appears to be the case here, payment was to be made at the place of the creditor i.e., at Delhi in the present case. The learned Trial Court has not misdirected itself in following the said judgment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that Satyapal (supra) was decided in the manner it did, only because the contract was entered into at Delhi and the orders were placed at Delhi, is not wholly correct, inasmuch as this court had quoted with approval, the judgment of the learned Trial Court, which clearly held that in cases where the place of payment was not specified in the contracts/bills/invoices, parties had to follow the general rule that the payment had to be made at the place of the creditor.
6.3 Para 21. Before concluding, reference is made to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Base Corporation Ltd. v. Amrutha Power Corporation, [judgment dated 25th September, 2018 in MFA 6564/2011] is not applicable as it relates to the vesting of jurisdiction in a court which otherwise did not have such jurisdiction. That is not the case here. In Shridhar Vyapaar (supra), the payments were made through RTGS into the bank at Kolkata whereas, in the present case, such payments were made into the account maintained by the respondent/plaintiff at ICICI Bank at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The decision in Mountain Mist Agro India (supra) was in relation to the N.I. Act and is not relevant for the determination of territorial jurisdiction in civil matters. Similarly, the decision of the Punjab High Court in Piyara Singh v. Bhagwan Das, 1950 SCC OnLine Punj 108 is limited to the inapplicability of the principle ‘debtor seeking the creditor’ under the N.I. Act.
6.4 Para 22: When, in the present case, the part cause of action has arisen also on account of the payments made by the petitioner/defendant directly into the bank account of the respondent/plaintiff, even if these were not on regular basis, since there is nothing to show that the place of payment had been fixed, even without following the principle that the ‘debtor must seek out the creditor’, it is clear that the Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit and the invoice does not vest jurisdiction in a court which had no jurisdiction at all.
6.5 Decision : this Court finds no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with the pending application..
7.1 Facts of the case : Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sections 20 and 151 and Rules 7 and 10 – Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 2(2)(c) Suit for permanent injunction to restrain
defendants from infringement and passing off of its trade mark and design and rendition of accounts from defendants – Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Held, occurrence of cause of action or any part thereof, at a place, held to be a determining factor, both under section 20 CPC, and section 134 of Trade Marks Act, to attract jurisdiction of court at such place – Pleadings are sufficient for Court to proceed with suit.
7.2 Case Observation : Para 36. If under section 20 CPC, jurisdiction of the Court is attracted by virtue of location of the defendant’s place of business or from where the
defendant is carrying on its business or working for gain, under section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, it is the plaintiff’s office location or from where he is carrying on business, is a material factor. However, in IPRS (SC) (Supra), the occurrence of cause of action has been read into section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, as a determining factor, even though not spelt out in the language, on the lines of section 20 CPC. Therefore, if some part of cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff has its branch/subordinate office, Courts at that place will have jurisdiction to entertain a suit against infringement and passing off. In other words, the occurrence of cause of action or any part thereof, at a place, is held to be a determining factor, both under section 20 CPC, and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, to attract jurisdiction of the court at such place.
7.3 Decision : The court held that this Court is of the view it is sufficient to prima facie conclude that in terms of the “third situation” set out in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Courts in Delhi are available to the Plaintiff, under section 20(c) CPC, to bring an action against infringement and passing off, even if the Defendant does not have an office in Delhi.
It is therefore concluded that the suit can be filed within the jurisdiction where the Respondent resides or where the cause of action arose. It has been a settled principle of law through a plethora of judgments that invoices are the written contracts. Suit can be instituted within the jurisdiction where either the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose. It has been observed that the cause of action can arise at various stages in contract such as where the contract is made, contract is breached, where the part of contract has been performed for the performance of the contract. Therefore place of cause of action includes where the contract is made i.e. from where the invoices (written contracts) are issued.