M/S Vihan Health Care Vs M/S Vetogen Animal Health LLP

M/S VIHAN HEALTH CARE 401 AND 402 AT PLOT NO. A-5, SURYAVANSHI PEARL, CHOUMU HOUSE, SARDAR PATEL MARG C- SCHEME JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN - 302001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. PREET HANUMANDAS TANWAR

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

M/S VETOGEN ANIMAL HEALTH LLP 164, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE- 560094 KARNATAKA INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S FINANCIAL MANAGER

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 03.01.2026 VIDE ANNX-A ANWSERING ISSUE NO. 2 IN THE NEGATICE IN COM. OS NO. 176/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-88) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE OFFICE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CC-88) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE OFFICE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-88) TO RETURN THE PLAINT IN COM OS NO. 176/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE (CCH-88) TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE A COURT OF JURISDICTION.

¶22

IN WP NO. 3132/2026

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

M/S. PHARM DEAL A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 PLOT NO, C-367, ROAD NO. 9J, VKI AREA, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN- 302013 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

SRI. PREET HANUMANDAS TANWAR

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

M/S. VETOGEN ANIMAL HEALTH LLP (A WHO- GMP AND ISO CERTIFIED COMPANY) 164, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, AECS LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560094 KARNATAKA INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPA HOLDER SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S FINANCIAL MANAGER

¶33

...RESPONDENT

¶34

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANILKUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

¶35

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE ORDERS DATED 03.01.2026, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ANSWERING ISSUE NO.2 IN THE NEGATIVE IN COM.O.S.NO.178/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDI. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-88) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE OFFICE OF THE LXXXVII ADDI. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH- 88) TO RETURN THE PLAINT IN COM.O.S.NO.178/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH- 88) TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE A COURT OF JURISDICTION.

¶36

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶40

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶41

Aggrieved by the orders passed on Preliminary Issue No.2 in COM.OS.No.176/2024 and COM.OS.No.178/2024 dated 03.01.2026 by LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-88), the defendant is before this Court by filing WP No.1522/2026 and WP.No.3132/2026 respectively.

¶42

The respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit for recovery of money. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a WHO-GMS and ISO certified Company carrying out the business of research manufacturing and marketing of a large range of animal health care and nutritional products for Poultry, Ruminants, Aquaculture, Swine, Equine and companion animals. The plaintiff and defendant have been in cordial relationship in all their business activities since February 2023. As per the purchase orders issued by the defendant, the plaintiff has made supplies to the defendant Company. But, after gaining trust and confidence with defendant’s Company, orders were received and supplies were made to defendant through telephone conversations and

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

whatsApp messages. The plaintiff and the defendant had several transactions between 02.03.2023 to 24.04.2023 for various products manufactured and supplied by plaintiff Company. Upon repeated requests by the plaintiff, the defendant Company failed to make the payments. Therefore, the plaintiff served a notice dated 03.08.2023 calling upon the defendant to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.96,01,832/for which the defendant has not taken any steps. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to issue a debit note to the defendant and a legal notice was sent on 22.08.2023 to the defendant. Thereafter the plaintiff had instituted the suit.

¶46

In the written statement, the defendant has taken the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court at Bangalore. Based on the stand taken by the defendant in the written statement, the Trial Court framed an issue as to whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. By the order impugned, the Trial court has held that the material was sent from the office of the plaintiff at Bangalore to Jaipur. Since part of the cause of action arose in Bangalore, the courts at

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Bangalore have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the issue was held in favour of the plaintiff in both the suits.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant submits that the findings of the Trial Court are contrary to the facts. It is submitted that the material was despatched from Raipur, Uttarakhand to Jaipur, Rajasthan and not from Bangalore. It is submitted that, the findings of the Trial court are factually incorrect and based on the same, the Trial court had held the said issue in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶52

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the material sent from Raipur, Uttarakhand to Jaipur is without any basis. Even in the written statement also he has not taken such a plea. The Trial Court considering the fact that the plaintiff Company is situated in Bangalore and as part of cause of action arose in Bangalore has rightly held the issue with regard to jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiff and held that the suit is maintainable at Bangalore. It is submitted

¶53

7 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

that no interference is called for with the well-considered order passed by the Trial Court.

¶57

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶58

perused the material on record. The plaintiff has filed the suit stating that part of the cause of action arose at Bangalore. This Court has perused the written statement filed by the petitioner herein. In the written statement, it is stated that he carries on business at Jaipur and that no cause of action arose at Bangalore. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no mention about Raipur in Uttarakhand in the pleadings. The petitioner-defendant may have evidence to substantiate his case. However, as this issue was framed as a preliminary issue, the parties have not adduced any evidence. This particular issue, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶59

is a mixed question of fact and law. Unless and until the evidence is adduced by both the parties, it cannot be decided by the court. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the Trial Court, in light of the arguments that is submitted before this court cannot be sustained. Hence this court deems it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter, so

¶60

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:25511 WP No. 1522 of 2026 C/W WP No. 3132 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

that the Trial court will consider this issue along with the other

¶63

issues. Accordingly this court is passing the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. The order passed on issue No.2 with regard to the jurisdiction in COM.OS.No.176/2024 and COM. O.S.No.178/2024 dated 03.01.2026 by LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶66