This revision petition challenged an order returning a plaint for lack of jurisdiction. The court held the Chennai court lacked jurisdiction as the cause of action regarding the disputed letter arose in Perambalur and Thiruchengode, dismissing the revision. Relief: None.
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.
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 14.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
A.R.Srinivas ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Agate International (P) Ltd.,
Rep by its Managing Director Mr.Pragadeesh Kumar, No.86/20, Royal Towers, Sankari Road, Seetharam Palayam, Thiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 209.
2.Pragadeesh Kumar ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in O.S.(SR).No.6633 of 2024 by the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
1/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sivaraman.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by
the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai dated 19.06.2024.
2/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
employed with the 1st defendant to manage its duty free shop at Petrapol, West Bengal. The petitioner was authorised to sell liquor from the duty free shop but the same should have been in foreign exchange. Alleging that the plaintiff had sold foreign liquor without proper documentation and had also sold on credit basis through online portals in Bangladesh, action was initiated against him.
3/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
09.06.2024 stating that he will repay the money paid unofficially to the concerned officials. Citing his manhandling of the plaintiff as a cause of action for coercion, he presented the suit for injunction on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai.
doubt as to how the suit is maintainable within the Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. The matter was posted before the learned I Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for maintainability. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff, passed an order returning the plaint. Hence, the Revision.
for the plaintiff was given when he was residing at Velachery and the
salary for the work that he had completed for the 1st defendant was
4/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
also paid at Velachery. Therefore, the City Civil Court at Chennai has Jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
suit does not relate to any arrears of money payable by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff. It relates to the letter dated 09.06.2024 said to have been issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. The 1st defendant has its corporate office at Seetharama Palayam, Thiruchengode, Namakkal and the 2nd defendant, who is the Managing Director also has his office there. The letter dated 09.06.2024 had been issued at Poolambadi Village, Perambalur, where the 2nd defendant is said to have been staying in a guest house. There is no cause of action within the Jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Chennai. If at all any cause of action arises, it is only within the Jurisdiction of Perambalur or Thiruchengode.
5/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
suit before the Court having Jurisdiction.
dismissed. No costs.
14.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
The I Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.
6/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kan
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
7/8
C.R.P.(PD).No. 3080 of 2024
14.08.2024
8/8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether City Civil Court at Chennai has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding a letter issued at Perambalur by a respondent whose office is in Thiruchengode.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's order refusing to entertain a civil suit due to lack of cause of action within its jurisdiction.
Whether the plaintiff's claim of employment ties in Chennai creates cause of action for jurisdiction purposes.
A.R.Srinivas
1.Agate International (P) Ltd.
2.Pragadeesh Kumar
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
