KANNU EXPORTS Vs. BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of defendant No.4's application under Order VII Rule 11 (D) read with Section 21 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint and plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. IA No.9339/2001 By this application, the defendant No.4 has sought rejection of plaint on the ground that the defendant is a foreign company and does not have any office in India and it does not carry on any business in India nor resides in India and in the circumstances Indian Courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding against the defendant No.4/applicant. The defendant No.4/applicant has also sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is well settled that the presence of a foreign defendant who appears under protest to contest jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction on the court and because the defendant is contesting the jurisdiction of the Court under protest, no jurisdiction is conferred and since there is no jurisdiction against the defendant no.4/applicant plaint is liable to be rejected against him.

(2.) The applicant/defendant no.4 asserted that it neither resides within the jurisdiction or voluntarily appeared or has contracted with the plaintiff, therefore, the Courts in India do not have any jurisdiction to try the case against the defendant no.4. The reliance was placed by the applicant/defendant No.4 on 1990 (3) SCC 481, British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries and others; (1998) 5 SCC 310; World Tanker Carrier Corporation Vs. S.N.P. Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and Others and (1963) 2 SCR 577, Raj Rajender Sardar Moloji Nar Singh Rao Shitole Vs. Shankar Saran and Others to contend that since the defendant no.4 is a foreign company not having its registered office in India, the Courts in India does not have jurisdiction against such an entity. The applicant has also relied on D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 267 to contend that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not discloses any cause of action against the defendant no.4/applicant, a foreign company. The applicant has also relied on AIR 1997 Allahabad 323, ITC Limited Vs. Rakesh Bihari Srivastava and AIR 1954 Bombay 491, Baroda Oil Cakes Traders Vs. Parshottam Narayan Das Bagulia and Another to contend that the plaint in the facts and circumstances of the case is liable to be rejected under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The applicant has also sought rejection of plaint on the ground that the contract No.CPA/12/7/98 was not between defendant No.4 and Kannu Exports and in case of any dispute the matter had to be referred to the arbitration of GAFTA in London and on this ground also it is claimed that the Court does not have jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be rejected.