FEDERAL BANK LIMITED Vs. HOMERUN SPORTS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order dated 02.11.2018, in O.S.No.2057/2018 on the file of the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (for short, the 'learned Civil Court'). The learned Civil Court by the impugned order has allowed I.A. No.3 filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has returned the plaint to be presented before the 'Proper Court'.

(2.) The parties to the proceedings are referred to as they are arrayed in O.S.No.2057/2018.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.2057/2018 for recovery of Rs. 1,23,49,705/- relying upon agreement(s) concluded with the defendant No.1 for installation of 'PSO Machine' in the retail outlets of defendant No.1. The plaintiff, in addition to relying upon the agreement(s) concluded with the defendant No.1, has detailed how the defendant No. 1, in breach of the terms of the agreement(s) and otherwise, affected mala fide transactions between 29.11.2017 and 21.01.2018 to project its claim for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,23,49,705/. Insofar as the cause of action, the plaintiff has asserted that the learned Civil Court would have jurisdiction because the agreement was signed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court. Further, the transactions were effected by the defendant No.1 within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court. The defendants, with the defendant No. 1 being a private limited company and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 being its directors, upon being notified of the suit, while contesting the claim denying the plaint assertions, filed application (I.A.No.3) under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short). The defendants have prayed for return of the plaint to be presented to the court of proper jurisdiction. The defendants, in support of such application, relied upon the clause 16(f) of the agreement which reads thus: