ANAND TRADERS AND ANR. Vs. S.K. ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in this case is whether the learned Assistant District Judge, Gauhati was correct in holding that it had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the Plaintiff opposite party.

(2.) The Plaintiff-opposite party, which is a partnership firm, carries on business of motor parts and accessories etcs. at Gauhati. The Petitioner No. 1-Defendant is also a partnership firm having its place of business at Pune. It deals in diamond brand taxi and auto-rickshaw fare meters and other accessories. The Plaintiff-opposite party being interested in obtaining distributorship of the taxi and auto rickshaw fare meters manufactured by the Defendant firm for the State of Assam approached the Defendant-Petitioners at Pune. A partner of the Plaintiff firm went to Pune for the purpose and wrote a letter on 30th Oct., 1976 to the Defendant firm requesting it to intimate the terms and conditions for the distributorship, delivery scheme and the price structure. He also had discussion with the representative of the Defendant firm at Pune in that connection. The Defendant firm in terms of the discussion, appointed the Plaintiff firm as its distributor for Assam. The appointment was communicated by letter dated 30th Oct., 1976 delivered to the representative of the Plaintiff firm in Pune, who in turn, on the very same day placed orders for supply of 200 numbers of diamond taxi meters and some other articles vide letter dated 30th Oct., 1976. The price of each meter with accessories was fixed at Rs. 1350.00. Along with the order a draft for Rs. 1,80,000.00 on the Indian Overseas Bank, Pune by way of advance was also enclosed. The goods were to be sent by air and road transport as indicated in the said letter. Accordingly, the Defendant firm supplied 100 meters on 4.11.76 by air and further 50 meters each in two instalments by road transport in terms of the order.

(3.) After about one and a half year the Plaintiff firm came to know that the Defendant firm had charged Rs. 1350.00 per meter which was higher than the price of such meters prevalent in the market. According to the Plaintiff, the price of each meter should have been Rs. 1150.00. There was thus an excess realisation at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per meter. The Plaintiff, therefore, demanded from the Defendant firm refund of a sum of Rs. 40,291.12 being the excess amount realised on supply of taxi meters with interest and charges etc. The Defendant having refused to pay, the Plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 132/78 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Court at Gauhati had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as the contract in question was made at Pune and no cause of action did arise at Gauhati. According to the Defendants the case of the Plaintiff being that the Defendants had charged higher prices for the meters applied by it to the Plaintiff in pursuance of an agreement entered in at Pune by making mis-representation in regard to the price prevailing at the time of the execution of the agreement, it was the place where the alleged wrong complained of was done to the Plaintiff which was relevant for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, it was only the Court at Pune which had territorial jurisdiction to try the same and not the Court at Gauhati.