NITCO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. VENKATESWARA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is filed against the order dated 30-8-1991 passed by the learned city civil judge, bangalore, ordering the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court.

(2.) facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:defendant 1 was having a contract with international airport authority for erecting airport building at meenambakkam, madras. Defendants wanted a subcontractor for doing mosaic flooring work at madras. In that behalf the appellant was approached. Appellant went to Madras and made an offer. That offer was accepted at Madras by the defendants with a condition that the appellant had to furnish bank-guarantee for due performance of the contract. The appellant gave an indemnity bond to his banker at Bangalore and his banker executed a bank-gurantee which was transmitted from Bangalore to Madras and at madras, defendant 1 accepted the bank-guarantee and permitted the appellant to go ahead with the contract. After completion of the contract dispute arose with regard to the demand of certain amount in respect of liability to pay sales tax to the state government of madras. Appellant instituted the suit making a claim against the defendant in the court at bangalore. Among other grounds, it was contended by the defendants that the court at Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction as no part of cause of action had arisen in the limits of court at bangalore. This was taken up as a preliminary issue and after the parties adduced evidence, they were heard and the trial court recorded a finding holding that the court at Bangalore had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and directed the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court at madras. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant has approached this court.

(3.) the contention of the appellant is that after he made an offer on 1-12-1983 itwas accepted by the respondents subject to the condition that he had to furnish a bank-guarantee and after an exchange of a series of letters he gave an indemnity bond to his banker at Bangalore and he sent on 13-7-1984 the bank-guarantee by posting it to Madras and therefore a part of cause of action had arisen at Bangalore and therefore the trial court had committed an error in holding that no part of cause of action had arisen at bangalore.