KPL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. API INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18 June 2015 of the learned Single Judge declining leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent for institution of the Summary Suit proposed to be filed by the appellantplaintiff against

(2.) The respondentdefendant is a limited company with its registered office at Bhavnagar in Gujarat. The defendant, however, has its regional office in Mumbai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned trial Judge took the view that since the registered office of the defendant, which is its principal place of business is in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, the defendant cannot be taken to be carrying on its business in Mumbai, even if its regional office was situated at Mumbai. Of course, its subordinate regional office in Mumbai may give this Court territorial jurisdiction, but only in respect of any cause of action or a part thereof which has arisen in Mumbai. For taking this view, the learned trial Judge relied upon the explanation to section 20 of the CPC. The learned Judge then held that since no cause of action or any part thereof had arisen within the territorial limits of this Court, leave could not be granted under clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is erroneous and contrary to the law settled by this Court in Pratap Singh v. The Bank of America,1976 78 BLR 549 and also by the Supreme Court in Jindal Vijaynagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) v. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd., 2006 11 SCC 521.