JOY P CHUNGATH Vs. LAWKIN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The determination of 'territorial jurisdiction' under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code and the intent, purpose and legal effect of the 'Explanation' to that section are the issues arose for our consideration in this appeal. An order directing that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court in which the suit should have been instituted, passed by the IInd Additional Subordinate Court, Emakulam O.S.No. 228/2005 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, on the premise that the above said court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, is challenged in this appeal. The plaintiff is a consultant (Pediatric and Hospital service) at Kochi and represented by his power of attorney holder. The defendant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Firosh Nagar, Mumbai.

(2.) Facts;

(3.) The defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed a written statement disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub Court at Emakulam, among other serious contentions. It is contended that the memorandum of understanding was executed at the corporate office of the defendant at Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra. The defendant is having its registered office and principal place of business at Mumbai in the State of Maharshtra and no part of the transaction alleged in the plaint has taken place in Kerala. It is also contended that the defendant company is neither having an office nor carries on business or personally works for gain at Emakulam. No part of the cause of action has arisen at Emakulam. Therefore the Sub Court at Emakulam has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is liable to be returned for presentation before the proper court. Thus the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction has been taken as a preliminary issue.