H.P. UNIVERSITY Vs. MISS SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the point that falls for determination is whether the court at Nahan had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by Sudesh Kumari against the Himachal Pradesh University, Simla for a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the H.P. University in January, 1972, debarring her from taking any of the University examination for a period of three years was illegal, void and without any justification. The Defendant - - University took up the objection before the Senior Sub -Judge that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain or try the suit as neither the cause of action arose at Nahan nor the Defendant was a resident of Nahan. The Senior Sub -Judge, by his order dated 29th March, 1974, repelling the contention of the Defendant held that the court at Nahan had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) The case is governed under Sec. 20 of the Civil Procedure Code which is a residual section. Under this Sec. a court gets jurisdiction if (1) the Defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of its jurisdiction, or (2) the cause of action arises wholly or in part within such local limits. It has been held in Baherin Petroleum Co. Ltd. v/s. P.J. Pappu and Anr. : A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 634 that where the Defendants neither resided nor carry on business, nor any part of the cause of action arises within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, such court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit under Sec. 20 Code of Civil Procedure In the instant case the principal seat of the University admittedly, is at Simla and it has got no subordinate office at Nahan. It is also not denied that the Petitioner is a body corporate. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the explanation to this Sec. fully covers the case of the Petitioner and that it being a corporation and its principal office being at Simla and that no cause of action has arisen at any other place where it has also a subordinate office, therefore, the Respondent cannot contend that the court at Nahan had the jurisdiction. In order to give jurisdiction to a court in a case against a corporation both things must subsist, i.e. there must be a subordinate office of the corporation as also the cause of action must have arisen at that place. In the present case, according to him, neither there is any subordinate office nor the cause of action had accrued to the Plaintiff -Respondent at Nahan. He has also drawn support from a few authorities.

(3.) The first authority is Bharat Insurance Co. Delhi v/s. Wasudeo Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1956 Nag 203. In this case a policy of insurance was effected with an insurance company the head office of which was at Delhi. The proposal for the policy was made at Delhi and was accepted at Delhi. The money was also payable to the nominee at Delhi. The assured died at a place in Hyderabad State. The nominee brought a suit at Nagpur where the company had a branch office. It was held that the Court at Nagpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, it was held that the result of Explanation 2 to Sec. 20 is to restrict the meaning of 'carries on business' in Clause (a) in relation to corporations. A corporation can be sued at its sole or principal office in India. At any place where it has a subordinate office, it can be sued only in respect of a cause of action arising at such a place.