9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to be carrying on its business in Mumbai, even if its regional office was situated at Mumbai. Of course, its subordinate regional office in Mumbai may give this Court territorial jurisdiction, but only in respect of any cause of action or a part thereof which has arisen in Mumbai. For taking this view, the learned trial Judge relied upon the explanation to section 20 of the CPC. The learned Judge then held that since no cause of action or any part thereof had arisen within the territorial limits of this Court, leave could not be granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is erroneous and contrary to the law settled by this Court in Pratap Singh v. The Bank of America, 1976 Vol.78 Bom. L.R. 549 and also by the Supreme Court in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd., 2006 (11) SCC 521. 4. We have perused the plaint and the averments made by the plaintiff that the defendant is a company registered the Companies Act, 1956 with registered office at Bhavngar in Gujarat and with its regional office at the given address on S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place." (emphasis supplied) Section 120 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under : "S.120. Provisions not applicable to High Court in original civil jurisdiction : (1) The following provisions shall not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, namely, sections 16, 17 and 20." 7. An analysis of clause 12 would indicate that in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction of Letters Patent by itself, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description: (1) if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property such land or property is situated within Mumbai, or (2) if the cause of action has arisen wholly in Mumbai, or (3) if the cause of action has arisen in part in Mumbai, the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a clear distinction has been made between carrying on of business and working for gain. In the latter case the legislative requirement is that the defendant should personally work for gain, whereas no such requirement is postulated for the carrying on of business. It means therefore that the defendant may carry on business himself or through an agent or agents. 6. We are concerned here with a defendant having a branch office within the limits of the jurisdiction of this High Court. It was submitted that the defendant could carry on business only at its' principal office i.e. the Head Office at San Francisco, U.S.A., where there exists their Board of Directors which can take final decisions. It was submitted that it was only at this place that the defendant could be said to be carrying on business. It is impossible to accept this restrictive meaning which has not found favour with either the High Court of Allahabad or the High Court of Calcutta. 7. Whether the defendant carries on business within the limits of the jurisdiction of a Court is a question of fact. Where an allegation to this effect is made in the plaint and properly traversed by the defendant in the written stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. The respondent filed a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act in this Court. This Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Arbitration Act may be assumed by the Court exercising jurisdiction in a place where no part of the cause of action has arisen, if the respondent being a company has a corporate office at the place where the Court is moved. 12. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 9 of the Arbitration Act; that the High Court erred in holding that by virtue of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the respondent in the Bombay High Court; and that the settled law was that it is the situs of the cause of action and not the place of business which is the deciding factor in determining jurisdiction under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. It was also contended that the principle in the explanation to section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be applied to clause 12 of the Bombay Letters Patent, although section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120 specifically excludes the applicability of Section 20 of the CPC to Chartered High Courts. ......... 28. .......... 29. The appellant has urged that P.S. Satthappan's case will apply only in case there is a conflict between the Letters Patent and the CPC and that there is no conflict. Such a submission, in our view, is clearly fallacious for the following reasons: (i) the Letters Patent and CPC operate in separate fields, i.e. The Letters Patent specifically conferring jurisdiction on Chartered High Courts and the CPC conferring jurisdiction on all other Courts. (ii) There is clearly a difference between the scope of the Letters Patent and the CPC. The difference being evident upon a plain reading of Section 120 of the CPC." 16. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel Ltd. case (supra) on the issue regarding non applicability of explanation to Section 20 to Clause12 of Letters Patent, we are of the view that since the defendant is carrying on business within the limits of jurisdiction of this Court through its regional office as averred in the plaint, it is not necessary to consider whether the cause of action ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
