Application filed seeking leave to institute a suit against a loan provider and guarantor. The court granted leave based on the agreement allowing suits in Chennai and the cause of action having arisen there.
Leave to sue is granted. Registry is directed to number the suit if it is otherwise in order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A.No.2540 of 2020 in C.S.No.SR73127 of 2020
A.No.2540 of 2020 in C.S.No.SR73127 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J,
This application has been filed seeking leave to sue against the
first and second defendants. The plaintiff claims to have lent money to
the first defendant / Sambandh Finserve Private Limited having its
registered Office at Odisha. The second defendant is a guarantor and also has Office at Odisha.
sought advantage of the facility agreement entered into between the
plaintiff and the first defendant wherein it had been stated that though
Courts in Mumbai would have jurisdiction to examine issues arising out
of the agreement, it has been further stated that the said conferment of jurisdiction is for the benefit of the plaintiff herein and that the plaintiff can also institute a suit in any competent Court. More specific attention
is drawn to the agreement with the guarantor / second defendant wherein
the Courts at Chennai had been stated to be the competent Court having
jurisdiction to decide any issue arising out of the agreement.
1/2
A.No.2540 of 2020 in C.S.No.SR73127 of 2020
rna
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.J,
transaction actually took place at Chennai wherein money was lent and
borrowed. The stamp papers were also purchased at Chennai. It was emphasised that the entire cause of action, so far as the lending of the
money is concerned, took place in Chennai.
rna
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to sue is to be granted against the defendants where the cause of action arose in Chennai and jurisdiction clauses in the agreement permit suit in Chennai or Mumbai.
Plaintiff
Sambandh Finserve Private Limited
Second Defendant (Guarantor)
C.V. Karthikeyan J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
