- (1.)The appellant, having its principal place of business at Ahmedabad, had its office in Bombay also. As respondent No. 1, a registered firm carried on business at Bombay, where its partners, the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 carried on business and resided, it stands to reason that the respondents would place orders at the Bombay office rather than place the same with the Ahmedabad office of the appellant. The bills in respect of the goods sold were sent by the appellant after the goods were delivered. The contract was apparently finalised at Bombay and so the sending of the bills with the superscription "subject to Ahmedabad jurisdiction" is of little or no consequence and it cannot confer jurisdiction on a court in Ahmedabad. The contentions of the appellant that sending of the bills with the aforesaid condition amounted to a counter proposal, and that since no objection was taken to the same, the respondents had agreed to the aforesaid term regarding jurisdiction in the bills, were rejected. Held, that acceptance by the Bombay office of the orders placed by the respondents concluded the contract and that the court at Ahmedabad did not have jurisdiction to try the suit.
Appeal dismissed.