Jurisdiction

ABC (Querist) 26 June 2013 This query is : Resolved
Dear
sir
party is living in gujrat . company's regd.office in mumbai
all transaction deal in company's ahmedabad branch office.
company file civil suit against party
in mumbai
my quatation is
where is jurisdiction?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

prabhakar singh (Expert) 26 June 2013
The suit should be filled where the defendant resides and cause of action arose
unless there was pre agreement about the choice of one between two jurisdictions available in alternate.

ajay sethi (Expert) 26 June 2013
part of cause of action must have arisen in mumbai . hence suit must have been filed in mumbai . without knowing detailed facts of case difficult to advise .

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 26 June 2013
Agree with the experts, nothing more to add.

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 26 June 2013
In the given facts, the jurisdiction vests only in the civil court at Ahmedabad.

Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 26 June 2013
Dear Querist
if there is no agreement or any cause of action arise in Mumbai then only due to the head office the company can not file the suit in Mumbai.
for jurisdiction the main thing is residence/business of defendant and cause of action.

read the below mention Sections

16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.

Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits-

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

(b) for the partition of immovable property,

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate :

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant, may where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Explanation.- In this section “property” means property situate in 1[India].

COMMENTS

Where the property mortgaged as collateral security for loan advanced to defandant by a bank situated at place ‘J’ then the suit for foreclosure by the bank can only be instituted before Civil Court at place ‘J’; Central Bank of India v. Eleena Fasteners (P) Ltd., AIR 1999 HP 104.

1. Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, sec. 3, for “the States” (w.e.f. 1-4-1951).

17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Court, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate :

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.

(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction :

Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.

(2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice.

19. Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.

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 one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

Illustrations

(a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

(b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.

20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

1[* * *]

2[Explanation].-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in 3[India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

Illustrations

(a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and requests A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue B for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen or in Delhi, where B carries on business.

(b) A resides at Simla, B at Calcutta and C at Delhi A, B and C being together at Benaras, B and C make a joint promissory note payable on demand, and deliver it to A. A may sue B and C at Benaras, where the cause of action arose. He may also sue them at Calcutta, where B resides, or at Delhi, where C resides; but in each of these cases, if the non-resident defendant object, the suit cannot proceed without the leave of the Court.

COMMENTS

(i) Facts pleaded which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned. For that fact pleaded must have relevance to the lis/dispute; Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 126.

(ii) Where the agreement stated that jurisdiction regarding all disputes is at Delhi where the agreement has been signed and executed while the agreement by parties was not signed at Delhi but at some other place, then the agreement cannot be said to be conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Civil Court at Delhi. Party can file a suit under section 20(c) at place where cause of action wholly or partly arose; Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 MP 271.

(iii) Where the agreement was an agreement for sale of movable property then sections 16 and 19 would not govern the cause of action in such case but section 20 of the Code would be attracted for determining jurisdiction of Court; Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 MP 271.

1. Explanation I omitted by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 7 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
2. Subs, by Act No. 104 of 1976, sec. 7, for “Explanation II” (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
3. Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, sec. 3, for “the States” (w.e.f. 1-4-1951)

21. Objections to jurisdiction.

1[(1)] No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues or settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

2[(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

(3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.]

COMMENTS

There is no intermediary stage for raising an objection to jurisdiction except filing of written statement and taking that plea unless the matter is covered by section 9A of the Code; B.S.I. Ltd. v. M.V. “CRISTIAN-C”, AIR 1999 Bom 320.

Feel Free to Call