TMI Blog1974 (7) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of Poha so arranged was affected by an action taken by the defendant No. 2 mala fide and without legal authority, who stopped its movement. Because of that, the plaintiff complains, as can be seen from further allegations, that their business in Akola was affected and they suffered losses and that is the basis for claiming damages. Defendant No. 2 is said to have acted on behalf of or under the authority of defendant No. 1 present applicant. The plaintiff has given details in para, 6 of the claim, which more or less show the amount of loss on account of withholding the raw material and keeping the factory idle. The loss in business complained of is stated to have occasioned with the territorial jurisdiction of the Akola Court. The Suit on that basis is filed in that Court. 3. Thus the plaintiff's cause as led in Akola Court in that they have suffered damage or loss because of the illegal action of defendants 1 and 2 together, particularly of defendant No. 2 acting for defendant No. 1. The case, clearly is one based on the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of Akola Court. The Trial Court has answered the issue of jurisdiction by holding that the cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of carrying on business. Therefore, Union of India Court be sued in a Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the headquarters of the railway, run by the Union, is found to belated. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Ram Lal, (1966)IILLJ365All the Court was considering the provision of Section 20(c) along with Sections 20, 19 and 80(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed by the plaintiff who was initially employed in the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh and his services were later on terminated. He was reemployed and his services were later on terminated. He was resident of Varanasi and during the terms of service he was not employed there. However for the purpose of recovery of arrears of salary traveling allowance and refund of security deposit he filed the action in Varanasi Court, after serving the notice on the Collector of Varanasi. The Court viewed the claim in suit in different parts. Applying the principle that debtor must seek creditor, the suit filed at Varanasi with respect to the security amount of Rs.500 was found to be within the jurisdiction of Varanasi Court, but for other relives the suit was adjudged as without jurisdiction. While consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de of Civil Procedure was determining the jurisdiction of the Court, the suit for malicious prosecution had to be instituted where cause of action arose. The revise of summons of a criminal case commenced by the defendant would answer that part of Section 19. Between two sections, i.e., Sections 19 and 20 it was observed that Section 19 was an extension of Section 20, the latter being a residuary section. There are observations in the body of the judgment that the provisions of Section 19 to some extent overlap Section 19 appears to be made as providing for institution of a suit for compensation for wrong to person or movable, either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the wrong to person or movable, either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the wrong to person or movables, either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the wrong is done or the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. In Munirangappa v. Venkatappa AIR 1965 Mys 316 the provisions of Section 20(c) were held to contain a broad principle permitting the institution of a suit within the jurisdiction of Courts where even a smallest part of cause of action has arisen. 10. In T. R. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainty about the local limits of jurisdiction and the choice of place is indicated for the institution of suit. That also deals with immovable property. Sections 19 and 20(c) may now be extracted which read as under: 19. Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts. 20. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction - (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. 13. Provisions of Section 19 are specific in subject and clear in its operation. Firstly, it governs a suit seeking restitution reliefs of compensation on the basis of wrong done to the person or to movable property. Secondly it offers and furnishes option or choice if the conditions indicated by the qualifying clause are satisfied in that wrong complained of was done within the local limit of one Court while the defendant in fact resides or carries on business w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged wrongful act notwithstanding the place of such wrongful act clearly furnishing place of action . The phrase wrong done is indicative of completed action as stated (supra) and is wide enough to take in the results as the basis for the purposes of restitution. The Court within whose local jurisdiction damage was caused or suffered or sustained would clearly answer the requirements of Section 19 for the purpose of suits mentioned therein. The matters option afforded are not relevant nor decisive for this purpose nor the provisions of section 20(c) The extract of the provisions of the sections 20 (supra) by its opening part indicates that section 19 is striated as limitation upon the generality of the provisions of Section 20 itself, Reading both sections together if a case is not squarely answered by the earlier sections then it may still be answered by Section 20 itself. Its term are thus residuary. Turning to suits for compensations, if any narrow constructions to be placed on the phrase wrong done available in Section 19 then the matter still can be answered by Section 20(c) of the Code. For then Section 19 would indicate and only operate as part of cause of action havi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
