think this question is really concluded by the judgment of Beasley, J., in Bombay Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Council Dindigul [A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 146 .] which was a suit filed by the Bombay Co. Ltd., Madras, against the Municipal Council of Dindigul. It was there shown that the representatives of the Bombay Company in Dindigul had no discretion except receiving orders and sending them on. The question was whether they carried on business in Dindigul to be taxed. It was held that they were not, and Beasley, J., in an elaborate review of the authorities states that there is no difference in principle between residence for purposes of either the Income-tax Act, or the Municipal Act, or for purposes of jurisdiction. This judgment was affirmed by the Chief Justice and Madhavan Nair, J., in O.S. Appeal No. 6 of 1928 where all the authorities have been discussed by the learned Judges. I think that the facts disclosed in the present case in the affidavit, namely, that the agency in Madras does nothing, but acts as a post office forwarding proposal and sending moneys and not having any discretion in the matter either to conclude contracts or to vary them or to enter into them, the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company does not carry on business in Madras. It was stated that a suit may lie under S. 12 of the Letters Patent if the money is not paid. That may be so not on the ground that there is business carried on in Madras, but because the proposal was made in Madras and forwarded and part of the cause of action arose in Madras and on that ground leave may be given. I do not think we can confuse the fact of jurisdiction arising out of a part of the cause of action with jurisdiction
