STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SARVODAYA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in the present revision is whether the preliminary issue raised at the request of the present applicant - defendant. the State that the Akola Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the non-applicant-plaintiff was correctly decided.

(2.) The look at the plaint shows that it is a claim made by the plaintiff upon the allegations that it is carrying on a business of manufacturing. Poha from Dhan in Akola district. For that purpose they have to import raw materials. They had to import raw materials. They had entered into an agreement with M/s. Ghule brothers of Gondia for purchase of Poha in November-December, 1964. The Collector, Akola, had given them licence to import the necessary Dhan, 1964. The Collector, Akola had given them licence to import the necessary Dhan. It is further grievance that their import for the purpose of manufacture of Poha so arranged was affected by an action taken by the defendant No.2 mala fide and without legal authority, who stopped its movement. Because of that, the plaintiff complains, as can be seen from further allegations, that their business in Akola was affected and they suffered losses and that is the basis for claiming damages. Defendant No.2 is said to have acted on behalf of or under the authority of defendant No.1 present applicant. The plaintiff has given details in para, 6 of the claim, which more or less show the amount of loss on account of withholding the raw material and keeping the factory idle. The loss in business complained of is stated to have occasioned with the territorial jurisdiction of the Akola Court. The Suit on that basis is filed in that Court.

(3.) Thus the plaintiff's cause as led in Akola Court in that they have suffered damage or loss because of the illegal action of defendants 1 and 2 together, particularly of defendant No.2 acting for defendant No.1. The case, clearly is one based on the cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of Akola Court. The Trial Court has answered the issue of jurisdiction by holding that the cause of action for the purpose of damages would arise only on the proof of loss and the place where the loss is suffered, i.e. the place of business which is affected would offer sufficient nexus for upholding the jurisdiction.