Girish Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.3.1993 by which an application, for dismissal of the suit on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) The suit is a suit for recovery of damages against Steel Authority of India (SAIL in short) which carries on business within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. It is on this basis that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. Mr. Chatterjee learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has contended that the office of the defendant situate within the jurisdiction of this Court has never dealt with nor had any occasion to deal with any part or portion of the transaction between the parties. No demand for payment of any amount was or could be made by the plaintiff at No. 6, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta which is the office of the defendant within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the tender was invited at Durgapur. The tender was submitted by the plaintiff at Durgapur. Negotiations between the parties to the suit took place at Durgapur. Letter of acceptance was issued from Durgapur. The sale orders issued at Durgapur. The plaintiff at Durgapur deposited all amounts. All materials were lifted from Durgapur. Materials which according to the plaintiff, could not be lifted due to the alleged breach of the contract by the defendant were lying at Durgapur. All release orders in favour of the plaintiff were issued from Durgapur. The defendant's office at No. 6, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta, on the basis of which the plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction for the purpose of filing the suit, had nothing to do with the contract breach whereof is complained in the suit.
(3.) The sum and substance of the submission of Mr. Chatterjee is that no part of the cause of action of the plaintiff arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff, he submits, cannot maintain the present suit against the defendant only because the defendant has one of its offices within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. He has drawn our attention to the case of ABC Laminart Private Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239. He has placed reliance on Paragraph-15 which for convenience is reproduced herein-below:- "In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occured. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But, making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a Court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have (been) performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of the cause of action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors.";