NAND LAL MAHESH KUMAR Vs. BEEKALENE FABRICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 12. 9. 2003 passed in a civil suit No. 61/1991 whereby he dismissed the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of money on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for rendition of accounts and recovery of money against the defendant with the averments that plaintiffs-firm are sister concerns and constituted by the members of one and the same family. Both the plaintiffs-firms worked at Jaipur as Commission Agents of the defendant-company and the amount relating to one plaintiff-firm was adjusted in the account of other plaintiff firm. It is also averred that before commencement of the agency business, Shri Rajan Sehgal, who was the director of the defendant company, came at Jaipur and settled the terms and conditions with the partners of the plaintiff-firms and thereafter the business transactions took place according to the agreed terms and conditions. The plaintiffs further averred that they called upon the defendant company by notice dated 18. 7. 1999 to settle the accounts and to make the payment of the amount due to plaintiffs at Jaipur but the defendant sent false reply to the notice. The plaintiffs sought a decree against the defendant company for Rs. 3,03,185/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization and the costs of the suit.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree and other material available on the record. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the words ``subject to Mumbai jurisdiction'' containing on the bills sent by the defendant company exclude the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Court to try the suit ?