TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench has allowed the respondent's application for revocation of leave which had been granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent 1865 to the appellants to file a suit against the respondent in the Calcutta High Court. Leave was revoked on the ground that no part of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint had arisen within the original jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint was consequently directed to be taken off the file and returned to the appellants for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. The suit had been filed in 1995 by the appellants against the respondent alleging that the appellant had supplied goods pursuant to an agreement between the appellant No.1 and a German company, named K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted to receive the payment under the said letter of credit within a short period of time. There was no discrepancy in the said documents and till date, no complaint has been received from either the defendant or the Advising Bank or the purchaser in that regard. Payment under the said letter of credit was to be made at the office of the UCO Bank at 4 4/1, Red Cross Place, Calcutta 700 001, within the aforesaid jurisdiction. 4. On the allegation that inspite of request and demand, the respondent did not make any payment under the letter of credit, the appellants filed the suit for an amount of ₹ 7,01,670.36, further interest and other reliefs after obtaining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 5. Clause 12 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns were given for filing of a written statement, disclosure of documents and the trial of the suit. The written statement was ultimately filed by the respondent after extensions of time were sought and obtained, on 31st July 1998. The respondent filed its documents on 10th August 1999 and the suit has been ready for hearing since that date. 8. On 30th August 1999, the respondent made an application for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the application. 9. The Division Bench accepted the submission of the respondent that although the pleadings in the plaint showed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be received by the Plaintiffs from the said branch of UCO Bank. 11. The Division Bench could have held that what was alleged to be a part of the cause of action did not form part of the cause of action at all. This the Division bench did not do. It was not open to the Division Bench to come to a contrary factual conclusion in respect of any of these three grounds. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be allowed on this ground alone. 12. Before us the respondent has submitted that even though the documents were presented by the appellants within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court as claimed by it, there was no authorisation in favour of UCO Bank to accept presentation of the documents. It is said that the UCO Bank was only an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that there was no valid presentation by the appellant at the counters of UCO Bank, Calcutta. This has been countered by the appellant who has referred to Benjamin's Sale of Goods. What the role of UCO Bank in fact was is a mixed question of law and fact. At present, since we have to determine the court's jurisdiction ex facie the plaint, we cannot proceed on the assumption that UCO Bank was not authorised to receive the documents or that the payment under the Letter of Credit was to be made, as far as the appellants are concerned, at Dusseldorf. Ultimately it will depend upon whether UCO Bank was acting for the Respondent or the appellants. All these matters will have to be decided on evidence and cannot be decided on an applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
