Dismissed

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. v. Ici India Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Oct 2015NMS/2208/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion filed under Order VII Rule 11 CrPC, the petitioner sought dismissal of a suit due to lack of jurisdiction and limitation. The court held that since only part of the cause of action arose within its territory and no leave was obtained under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, the plaint was returned for filing in the appropriate court. The issue of limitation was not adjudicated

What did the court decide?

The plaint is returned to the plaintiffs for filing in the appropriate court; the notice of motion stands disposed with no order as to costs.

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. Vs Ici India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

26.NMS-2208-2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2208 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

SUIT NO.3079 OF 2006

¶7

Hindustan Organic Chemical Limited ….Plaintiffs V/s.

¶8

ICI India Limited

¶9

....Defendants

¶10

Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the plaintiffs.

¶11

Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate i/b. HBA Associates for the defendants.

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 19^th October, 2015

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1 Though the relief in this notice of motion is for dismissal of the suit for want of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the counsel for the applicants at the outset submitted that the submissions that he would make is basically for return of the plaint to the plaintiffs due to the plaintiffs not having obtained Leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent before lodging the plaint and second point assuming for the sake of argument, the court holds that this court has jurisdiction or no leave was necessary then for dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. The contract entered into between the parties provides as under :-

¶15

“Contract Price Rs/PMT (bulk) Ex-Rasayani – 36,500/- PMT”.

¶16

Gauri Gaekwad

¶17

2 26.NMS-2208-2009

¶18

2 The plaintiffs have also filed an additional affidavit affirmed by one D.G. Anvekar on 16^th October, 2015. In that also the entire basis of the plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs had to keep the material available for the defendants to pick up from their factory at Rasayani, District Raigad, Maharashtra. Rasayani or Raigad District is outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court when one considers Rule 26 of the Bombay High Court (O.S) Rules.

¶19

3 Though the counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that as reflected in the minutes of the meeting held between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the contract was entered into at Mumbai, the plaintiffs' office is in Mumbai and the payments under the invoices raised towards to be made in Mumbai, the indisputable fact was the performance of the contact viz., supply of goods to the defendants, i.e., part of the cause of action was to physically take place at Rasayani, outside the original jurisdiction of this court.

¶20

4 Mr. Narichania, counsel for the defendants did concede that part of cause of action indeed arose within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court though in the affidavit in support the applicants have stated no part of cause of action arose within Mumbai. As only part of the cause of action arose within the

¶21

Gauri Gaekwad

¶22

3 26.NMS-2208-2009

¶23

jurisdiction of this court, Leave of this court under Clause XII of Letters Patent was necessary which the plaintiffs had not taken.

¶24

5 After going through the documents and considering the submissions made by the defendants' counsel, Mr. Mehta, counsel for the plaintiffs in fairness stated that the plaintiffs should have obtained Leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent before the suit was lodged.

¶25

6 In view thereof, the plaint is return to the plaintiffs for filing in the appropriate court.

¶26

7 In view of the above, I am not making any observation on the issue of limitation. For the sake of clarification, I have not adjudicated upon the ground of limitation raised by the applicants.

¶27

8 The notice of motion accordingly stands disposed with no order as to costs.

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Gauri Gaekwad

26.NMS-2208-2009

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

¶34

Gauri Gaekwad

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. v. Ici India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd. v. Ici India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Falcon Brokerage Private Limited Vs Jayantilal Khandwala and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Hanifa Ali Mohd. Nanjiani Vs Albert Sequeira and 4 Ors.

Prabhavati a. Patel and Jayshriben J. Biscuitwala Vs Shivanna Babu Shetty

Hajra Zakaria Aghadi and 2 Ors. Vs Virendra Kumar Jhamb and 15 Ors.

Lilam Arvind Vora and Anr. Vs M/S. M. B. Associates and 7 Ors.

Pratapsingh Shoorji Vallabhdas and Ors. Vs Jaywant J. Patil and 20 Ors.