SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE action appears to be Swaika Properties revisited. THE present application is by defendant Rajasthan Financial Corporation for revocation of the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the twin grounds that no part of the plaintiffs cause of action could have arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and that it would be overwhelmingly inconvenient for the defendant to carry its records and witnesses to a trial in this court.
(2.) THE first plaintiff company, which has its registered office in Jaipur, availed of credit facilities from the defendant, which has been established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. THE plaint says that pursuant to negotiations between the second plaintiff promoter of the first plaintiff and the defendant, the corporation agreed to finance the setting up of a plant for the manufacture of alloy steel in Churu in Rajasthan. Paragraph 4 of the plaint claims that the letter of intent was issued to the plaintiffs Lalbazar Street office within jurisdiction and it was accepted by the plaintiffs by a letter issued from the Lalbazar office. Paragraph 6 of the plaint admits that a loan agreement was executed in Jaipur on April 4, 1988. THE plaintiffs complain of the defendant having failed to make timely disbursement of the loan amount which resulted in the plaintiffs business venture coming to naught. Paragraph 18 of the plaint refers to a letter dated September 20, 2004, received by the plaintiff no.1 at Rawdon Street within jurisdiction, by which the defendant informed the plaintiff of the best offer received by the defendant for sale of the plaintiffs manufacturing facility in Churu which the defendant had taken possession of under Section 29 of the Act of 1951. THE plaintiffs have pleaded at paragraph 19 of the plaint that they had questioned the defendants attempt to sell the manufacturing facility at an inordinately low price by a letter issued from Rawdon Street within jurisdiction. THE immediate succeeding paragraphs of the plaint refer to the sale of the land and plant at Rs.23.60 lakh and paragraph 22 of the plaint furnishes particulars in support of plaintiffs contention that the sale was fraudulent. Paragraph 25 of the plaint speaks of a notice of May 25, 2005 received by the first plaintiff at Rawdon Street within jurisdiction by which the defendant demanded payment of a sum in excess of Rs.84 lakh after adjusting the amount received against the sale. The plaintiffs instituted proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur against such demand and, by an order dated August 1, 2005, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the plaintiffs herein were free to take recourse to civil courts for adjudication of their claims. The plaint says that it is in furtherance of such liberty that the present suit has been filed. Paragraph 27 of the plaint refers to two further notices of December 26, 2005 and May 17, 2006 issued by the Churu and Bikaner offices of the defendant demanding payment of a sum in excess of Rs.84 lakh. The plaintiffs cite the receipt of such notices at their Rawdon Street address within jurisdiction. The plaintiffs say that they issued replies to such notices from the Rawdon Street office. Paragraph 28 of the plaint claims the notices to be wrongful and illegal and details particulars in support of such plea. Paragraph 33 of the plaint again refers to the three post-sale notices of demand for payment having been received at the Rawdon Street address within jurisdiction. The cause of action as pleaded in paragraph 4, 18, 19, 25, 27 and 33 of the plaint has been cited at paragraph 40 of the plaint to justify the present action being carried to this court.
(3.) THE plaintiffs obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of the institution of this action. THE reliefs claimed include one for accounts and others challenging the notices of demand raised by the defendant financial corporation for payment. THE basis for challenging the defendants demand is that the sale of the Churu plant was at an undervalued price. The defendant first refers to the judgment reported at (1985) 3 SCC 217 (State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties) and suggests that the present suit bears such a striking resemblance to the action which formed the subject-matter of the reported judgment that the dictum would be binding here. The defendant says that the relevant notices were all issued to the first plaintiffs registered office in Jaipur and the fact that copies thereof were dispatched by abundant caution to the alternative addresses in Calcutta would not permit the present plaintiffs to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this court on the basis of copy notices being received within jurisdiction.;