Dismissed

M/S. V.P. and Brothers v. M/S. P.N.R. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2007SJ/72/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court found it lacked jurisdiction under Clause 12 of Letters Patent as the defendant did not establish business within its jurisdiction. The plaint was returned, and the Summons for Judgment dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Plaint returned to Plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court; Summons for Judgment dismissed as not pressed.

M/S. V.P. and Brothers Vs M/S. P.N.R. Spinning… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.72 OF 2007 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3297 OF 2006 M/s. V.P. & Brothers. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. M/s. P.N.R. Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd. ...Defendant. .... Mr. H.D. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Plaintiffs.

¶3

Mr. Harvindersingh Toor i/b. N.M. Amin & Co. for the Defendant.

¶4

CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

¶5

03rd April 2007.

¶6

P.C. : . At the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, an objection was raised to the Jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and try the Suit, with regard to the provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The goods in the present case were supplied by the Plaintiff from the State of Gujarat to the Defendant in the State of Tamil Nadu. In Food Corporation of India V/s. Evdomen Corporation (1999) 2 SCC 446, the Supreme Court has held that

¶7

:2:

¶8

under	S	ection	120	of	the	C	ode	of	Civil	P	rocedure,
1908,	Sect	ions	16,	17	and	20	of	the	Code	do	not
apply	to	the	High	Co	urt	in	exe	rcise	of	the	original
civil juri	sdiction.	In that c	ontext, the	Sup	reme

¶9

Court held as follows :-

¶10

	" Jurisdiction	of t	he	Bombay	High
Court	to entertain	a	suit	under	its
ordinary	original	civil		jur	isdiction
is	determined by	clause	12	of	the
Letters	Patent of	the	Bo	mbay	High
Court.	Under clause	12	of	the	Letters
Patent,	a place w	here	the	de	fendant,
or	each of the	defen	dants	where	there
are	more than one,	at	the	comme	ncement
of	the suit, carry	on	busin	ess	would
be	a place where	the	court	would	have
jurisdicti	on."

¶11

This judgment was subsequently followed in Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) V/s. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd. - JT 2006(8) SC 230.

¶12

:3:

¶13

In the present case in paragraph 9 of the

¶14

plaint	it	has	not been	averred	tha	t the D	efendant
carries	on	bu	siness within	the	ju	risdiction of	this
Court.	Lea	ve	under Clause	12	of	the Letters	Patent
has	not		been obtained.	In	the	circumstances,	at
the	hearing		of the Su	mmons	for	Judgment,	Counsel
appearing		on	behalf of	the	Plai	ntiff has s	ubmitted
that	the p	laint	may be	returned		for presentation	to
the	appropriate		Court. Th	is req	uest	is not	opposed
on	behalf		of the	Defendant.		The Plaint	is

¶15

accordingly returned to the Plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Court.

¶16

The Summons for Judgment is in the circumstances dismissed as not pressed with liberty

¶17

reserved to the Plaintiff to take out appropriate proceedings.

M/S. V.P. and Brothers v. M/S. P.N.R. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. V.P. and Brothers v. M/S. P.N.R. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chalet Hotels Ltd. Vs K.C. Mehta and Anr.

Canara Bank Vs B. Arirman and Anr.

M/S. M. Ramaswamy Consultancy and Associated Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shirish Betgiri, Proprietor M/S. S and S Sea Foods

Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs M/S. J.D.Carriers and Ors.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. Vs Nadeem Zakaria Maklai

Ashok Kumar v. Pasad Vs Sahadev Vakhuba Jadeja