Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Polycab Wires Pvt. Ltd., filed a summary suit in the Bombay High Court against the respondent, M/s. Eta Engineering Pvt. Ltd., for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff had previously applied for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which was refused by an order dated 1st September 2014. The plaintiff persisted in seeking to sue in Bombay and argued that a Division Bench of the same court had granted leave in another matter involving the same plaintiff, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem (AIR 1989 SC 1239). However, the court noted that the Division Bench order did not mention that judgment. The court examined the Supreme Court judgment to determine whether leave could be granted. The facts showed that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant at Pune, where the defendant carried on business. The plaintiff's case was that the contract was made in Bombay and advances were paid there, but the goods were to be delivered in Pune. The court held that the cause of action consists of every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to obtain relief, and the essential fact of delivery of goods occurred in Pune, not Bombay. The making of the contract and payment of advance were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction because the defendant's obligation to deliver was to be performed in Pune. The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and therefore refused to grant leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Clause 12 of Letters Patent - Leave to Sue - Cause of Action - The court considered whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted when the cause of action arises partly within the court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff sought to sue in Bombay for recovery of price of goods supplied to the defendant at Pune. The court held that the making of the contract and payment of advance in Bombay did not constitute a part of the cause of action because the essential fact of delivery of goods was to occur in Pune. Applying the principle in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239, the court found that no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and refused leave. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be granted to the plaintiff to sue in the Bombay High Court when no part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
Leave Petition No. 234 of 2014 is dismissed. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is refused.
Law Points
- Cause of action must arise at least in part for court to grant leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent
- Meaning of cause of action includes every fact necessary for plaintiff to prove to obtain relief
- Making of contract and payment of advance are not sufficient to confer jurisdiction if goods are to be delivered outside court's jurisdiction
