- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows: THE Court: THE defendant has applied for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the principal ground that no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action, as pleaded in the plaint, has arisen within jurisdiction. THEre is an alternative case of forum non conveniens that has been made out. At the hearing it is the first limb which pressed more than the other.
(2.) Paragraph 23 of the plaint refers to paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 thereof as being relevant for the purpose of clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In addition, the plaintiff says that the averments at paragraphs 10, 14, 15 and 19 also refer to some part of the cause of action having arisen within jurisdiction. However, it appears that the plaintiff did not found the basis for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the averments in the plaint other than those in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 thereof. PARAGRAPHs 3, 5 and 6 of the plaint read as follows: "3. Since year 2001, the plaintiff at the request of the defendant agreed to provide finance to customers purchasing Maruti Cars from the defendant inter alia on the following terms and conditions: a) The plaintiff at Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata, within jurisdiction would provide finance to customers of the defendant through its offices in Orissa to the extent of the "loan amount" specified by the defendant. b) The defendant would obtain payment of the "Margin Money" directly from its customer and hand over a money receipt therefor to its customer. c) The customer in turn would approach the plaintiff with the money receipt consequent to which the plaintiff would grant finance to the customer in terms of agreements to be entered into between the plaintiff and the concerned customers. d) On execution of necessary agreement and documents, the plaintiff would issue a delivery order permitting to defendant to deliver the vehicle to the customer and subject to the defendant ensuring, inter alia, the following were sent to the plaintiff. (i) Documents confirming the asset cost and the margin money obtained by the defendant from the customer; (ii) Original invoice recording sale to the customer under finance from the plaintiff; (iii) Duplicate key of vehicle; (iv) Copy of Registration Certificate (showing registration in the name of the purchaser under finance from the plaintiff); (v) Signed delivery order evidencing receipt of the vehicle by the customer." "5. The plaintiff issued Delivery Orders mentioned in annexure "A" hereof and released diverse payments aggregating to Rs.40,66,648/- from February 26, 2006 to May 15, 2008 to the defendant being the aggregate of the amounts financed. Payments as aforesaid were made by the plaintiff at 24, Park Street, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid through its bankers; M/s. Axis Bank, Shakespeare Sarani Branch, Calcutta within the jurisdiction aforesaid to the defendant at Palmposh Road, Rourkella outside jurisdiction. Details of the total asset cost, loan amount and the amounts financed (which was paid by the plamnuff to the defendant as aforesaid) and the Margin Money paid directly by the customer to the defendant are also set out in annexure "B" hereof, 6. In relation to the aforesaid, the plaintiff from time to time between February 26, 2006 to May 15, 2008 issued 17 (number) several Delivery Orders mentioning the amounts financed and recording the Margin Money received by the defendant as mentioned in the money receipt and requiring the defendant to, inter alia, make over the following documents to the plaintiff: (i) Assets Cost Rs._ (ii) Initial payment/Margin Money of_received by you and credited to your account. (iii) The Original Invoice, raised as 'Sold to _under finance arrangement with MAGMA SHRACHI FINANCE LIMITED 24, PARK STREET, KOLKATA-700 016' (iv) Duplicate Kay (v) Money Receipt in respect of (ii) above. (vi) Delivery Order duly signed evidencing receipt of vehicle by the customer. (vii) Copy of Registration Certificate is retained by you & sent to us for our records. (viii) Other relevant papers, if any. Delivery Orders as aforesaid were issued after approval by the plaintiff at Magma House, 24, Park Street, Kolkata within jurisdiction." The first clause of the agreement that is pleaded at paragraph 3 of the plaint records that the plaintiff in Calcutta was to provide finance to the customers of the defendant through the plaintiff's offices in Orissa. There is nothing else of relevance in paragraph 3 for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. Paragraph 5 refers to payments in respect of the transactions having been made by the plaintiff at Park Street within jurisdiction through the plaintiff's bankers at Shakespeare Sarani within jurisdiction. Paragraph 6 refers to various documents and other properties that the defendant was apparently liable to make over to the plaintiff. One of the documents was to be an invoice which was to record that there was a finance arrangement with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's recorded address therein would be its Park Street, Calcutta address. At the foot of paragraph 6 of the plaint it has been pleaded that the delivery orders were issued after approval by the plaintiff at the plaintiffs office within jurisdiction. At paragraph 10 of the plaint it has been said that sums have become due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's office within jurisdiction. Paragraph 14 claims that demands have been made by the plaintiff on the defendant from the plaintiff's office or elsewhere within jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 speaks of the plaintiff, at its office within jurisdiction, being entitled to the specific delivery of certain documents. Paragraph 19 says that the defendant has acted in breach of the obligation owed to the plaintiff at the plaintiff's Calcutta office for which the plaintiff has apparently suffered loss and damage.
(3.) The plaintiff has also relied on a judgment INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. MULTIMETALS LIMITED, 1981 AIR(Del) 90 and has particularly placed paragraph 11 of the report where a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court has been referred to. It is the case of the plaintiff that if one of the documents that the plaintiff seeks from the defendant was to have recorded therein that the finance had been provided for the relevant transaction by the plaintiff at its Calcutta office, the situs of such office which was required to be recorded in the document may be made the basis for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where an action for non-delivery of such document is instituted. The plaintiff contends that it is in-built into the clause of the agreement recorded in the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 3 of the plaint that an obligation was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and such obligation was to be discharged at the plaintiffs office in Calcutta within jurisdiction.;