FLAT 20% OFF and 3-Months ADDED Validity on All Courses Absolutely FREE! Enroll Now Use Code: INDIA20
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

gagandeepsingh.bagga (Practising Lawyer )     12 September 2012

Suit for recovery

Dear Friends,

 

One person transferred Rs. 10,000 from his bank which is situated in Delhi to his friend's bank which is situated in Himachal Pradesh. The payment was send through ONLINE BANKING. It was send through INTERNET BANKING. Thereafter, the party receving the money refused to return the money later on. Accordingly, the suit for recovery was filed in Delhi. Now, the judge is asking to proof wiht supporting judgement that the case is maintainable in Delhi. He is saying since the money has been transferred to Himachal then the suit lies in HP. But, my submission was since the money is transferred from Delhi, so partly cause of action arise here since money has been transferred from Delhi ONLINE. He said, bring a relevant judgement of this then i will make suit maintainable. 

 

Anyone of my legal community friend who has experienced wiht this issue, please help me out with some supporting judgement.

 

Thank you. 



Learning

 3 Replies

jeetendra patel (lawyer)     12 September 2012

DEAR COLLEAGUE, SECTION 20(C) CPC HAS A WIDE SCOPE. EVEN SLIGHTEST OF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AT DELHI STILL DELHI COURT HAS GOT JURISDICTION.

IT IS  SETTLED  LAW  THAT JURISDICTION OF A CORT IS TO BE   DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF AVERMENT IN PLAINT.IN YOUR CASE YOU CAN PLEAD (EVEN BY WAY OF AMENDMENT) THAT DEFENDANT WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION/REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF MONEY AT DELHI.PLACE OF  MAKING OF PAYMENT ASSUMES  MATERIAL IMPORTANCE AND THAT PLACE GOVERN THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION BEING MATERIAL  CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE AT DELHI. )

GOOD LUCK.FEEL FREE TO CALL.  J.P.PATEL (ADVOCATE )    PUNE (9921158871

gagandeepsingh.bagga (Practising Lawyer )     12 September 2012

Thank you Mr. Patel for replying.

Unfortunately, in this case defendant was suppose to invest the money in a hydro project based in Himachal. He was not suppose to return the money. What happened, instead of investing the money, Defendant kept the money with himself. Defendant was a sub-contractor in the project, taken a project from main contractor and then proposed to plaintiff to invest in the project to get good return. Plaintiff, accordingly invested, through sending money online and then he did not invested and kept withhimself.........i need a judgemnet which says in online money transaction........territorial jurisdiction arises from where the money has been transferred.............

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Advocate)     29 June 2013

so teh cause of action ws not transfer of money. It was misapproprioateion which happened in HP


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query