Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 854 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of Court to entertain the suit - doctrine of forum conveniens - Invoice is raised from Delhi for the work performed within the State of Maharashtra - Seeking a decree alongwith interest compounded annually - rejection of Plaint on the ground of jurisdiction - seeking deletion of names from the array of Defendants - HELD THAT:- The essential prerequisite for invoking clause 8 is the existence of a dispute. In the facts of the present case, the record bares out that infact the Defendants had at no point of time, prior to the filing of the Affidavit in Reply to the Summons for Judgment never raised any dispute whatsoever qua any of the said invoices - the Defendants have also received the Plaintiffs letter dated 8th April, 2020 and legal notice dated 14th August, 2020 both of which have remained unanswered and undisputed. Thus, in the facts of the present case, there infact exists no dispute and hence the Defendants’ reliance upon clause 8 is not only entirely misconceived but also malafide.
The invoices do not either expressly or by implication provide that the moneys are payable in Delhi. The invoices infact set out the modes of payment acceptable to the Plaintiff, i.e., either by account payee cheque, demand draft or NEFT/RTGS - Merely because the details of the receiving bank are within the jurisdiction of another city, this fact alone would not mean (a) that the amounts are payable in that city and (b) that part of the cause of action had arisen in that city. Additionally, even assuming that the only mode for payment under the said invoices was via RTGS/NEFT, the same would not by itself amount to monies being payable in Delhi under the contract. The details of the Plaintiff’s bank are set out only to facilitate the payment by electronic mode and nothing else. This by no stretch of imagination can be construed to mean that the amounts due under the said invoices were payable in Delhi.
The common law proposition is undoubtedly based on the doctrine of forum conveniens, it is basis this that the Plaintiff has filed the present suit in this Court only to be told by the Defendant who neither disputes nor denies the Plaintiffs claim that Suit must necessarily be instituted in a Court which for the Plaintiff is clearly not forum conveniens and within which, no part of the cause of action has arisen. Such a contention must only be stated to be rejected.
Challenge to the Jurisdiction Bombay High Court rejected.