NEW STATEMAN PRESS Vs. H M T LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only short question involved in this matter relates to the question of jurisdiction.

(2.) The learned Trial Court thinking (a) that ordered machines were to be manufactured at Kalamessary and it is situated in Bangalore, (b) that the defendant/ respondents have got their Head Office in Bangalore, and (c) that there was some sort of agreement in between the parties that Bangalore Court will have the jurisdiction, took the view that this suit could not be filed in Delhi and should be filed in Bangalore. The learned Trial Court did recognise the principle laid down in the case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, JT 1991 (3) 337 that by agreement alone jurisdiction could not be conferred on any Court.

(3.) There is no dispute in between the parties that the Head Office of the defendant/respondents is located in Bangalore and in Delhi also they have their subordinate office. The order was placed here and all correspondence took place with Delhi subordinate office. Notice was also served on Delhi subordinate office. The goods were to be admittedly supplied from Kalamessary which is located undisputedly in Kerala. Nothing was to be done at Bangalore. According to the judgment of the learned Trial Court, also no cause of action arose at Bangalore. The parties even if they wanted could not confer jurisdiction on Bangalore Court especially in terms of Patel Roadway Limited v. Prasad Trading Company (supra). Though the entire judgment is relevant, yet the matter is succinctly concluded in Para 15 of the judgment. It reads as under :