that it was signed in Kolkata is accepted to be true, in the definition clause, “Bank” is defined as the Standard Chartered Bank acting through its branch at 90, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 or through any of its branches in India which includes its successors and assigns. Not only that, the term “Bank” throughout the RPA refers to the Respondent in Mumbai. Even if it is contended that the RPA was signed in Kolkata on stamp papers purchased from Kolkata, it is only a part of the cause of action. It would in no way oust the jurisdiction of Mumbai. The argument that the business transactions had taken place in Mumbai and that the shipment was sent from the Port of Mumbai and that the bills of exchange were all drawn in Mumbai are all extraneous to the litigation is not acceptable. The fact that goods were dispatched under the memorandum of agreements entered into by the Appellant in consequence of the RPA in Mumbai to the associates, is not a fact that is remotely connected to the transaction between the Appellant and the Respondent mentioned in the RPA. The transactions of exporting goods, the realisation of money, insurance of the transaction with the ICICI Lombard, default on the payment of the money, and thereafter rejection of the insurance claim by the insurance company would all, in the opinion of this Tribunal, fall into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which would confer territorial jurisdiction on the D.R.T. at Mumbai.
