BHAGATRAM GOYAL Vs. GUPTA CABLES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 27th of January, 1977 the plaintiff filed this suit in this Court against the defendant claiming a decree for Rs. 1,17,100/-. for interim and further interests and for other incidental and consequential reliefs.

(2.) The suit is by the plaintiff who alleges that he is the sole proprietor of a business and he states that he resides at Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa and carries on business in the State of Rajasthan. The suit is against the defendant, which is a private limited company. It is alleged in the plaint that the company carries on business, inter alia, at Bhubaneswar in the State of Orissa but has its registered office at No. 3 Jadulal Mullick Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaint is based on certain monetary transactions and accounts stated. The accounts were contained in two documents in which there were the following endorsements: "Subject to Bhubaneswar Jurisdiction." It is apparent from the plaint that the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint, arose at Bhubaneswar' and/or at places outside the jurisdiction of this Court. After the institution of this suit on the 27th January, 1977, writ of summons was served before the 13th May, 1977. On the 25th May, 1977, application was made under Chapter 13-A of the Original Side Rules of this Court for a summary judgment and thereafter on the 1st June, 1977 this application was made by the petitioner, the defendant herein. It is stated that after the institution of the suit another suit has been instituted on the basis of a counter claim by the defendant in the appropriate Bhubaneswar Court. In this application the defendant claims that the plaint be rejected or taken off the file and/or for stay of the suit. The prayers of the defendant are made on the following three reasons :

(3.) So far as the question whether the registered office is within the jurisdiction of this Court or not, there is serious dispute as to facts. The defendant, denies that fact and states that the registered office had been duly transferred to Howrah. It refers to the appropriate resolutions and also to the copy of the letter which it wrote to the appropriate authorities for recording the transfer of the registered office. The entries in the Register of Companies however have not been produced. The plaintiff, who is still a share-holder and at one point of time was a Director of the defendant company, disputes this contention and this allegation. My attention was drawn to certain correspondence in which the plaintiff wanted to assert that the registered office had not been transferred from the place within the jurisdiction of this Court. In my opinion, a dispute of this nature should not be resolved in this application. If necessary such a dispute can be resolved as a preliminary issue at the trial of the suit. Therefore, I would not dismiss or stay the suit on this ground, but I would reserve the trial of this issue as a preliminary issue at the time of the hearing of the suit.