IN THE COURT OF Dr. [ENTITY]: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI CS No. 148/2014 [PRECEDENT] M/s. [ENTITY] 30.04.2015
Present: Sh. [ENTITY] Advocate for the plaintiff along with the Proxy Counsel from the Bar.
Defendants not served.
Advocates are abstaining from work today on the issue of Pecuniary Jurisdiction.
Heard arguments on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction. This suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs only) along with the interest @ 20.75% P.A. has been filed by the plaintiff bank having its Corporate Office at Mumbai, registered office at Vadodra and Branch Office at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension. The short issue which has arisen before this Court at this preliminary stage is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit. This issue becomes relevant because Territorial Jurisdiction is the Courts power to bind the parties to the action and it is this law which determines the scope of the power of the Courts constituted under law.
I may observe that in a suit filed for recovery of the loan amount, it is the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT] [PRECEDENT] which govern the jurisdiction of the court in whose territory such a suit can be instituted, and I quote as under:
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. [* * *] [Explanation].A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.
It is evident from the above that in a suit filed by the plaintiff bank seeking recovery of the loan amount along with the interest, the same may be instituted either, (i) in a place where the defendant resides or carries on business, or (ii) in a place where the cause of action i.e. dispute or wrong has taken place.
[PRECEDENT] Page No. 2 of 8 Recently this issue regarding Territorial Jurisdiction was elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed a sunder:
" We shall take a short digression in terms of brief discussion of the approach preferred by this Court in the context of [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as, '[ACT]'), which inter alia, enjoins that a suit must be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The Explanation to that Section is important; it prescribes that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office, or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. Since this provision primarily keeps the Defendant in perspective, the corporation spoken of in the Explanation, obviously refers to the Defendant. A plain reading of [SECTION] of the [ACT] arguably allows the Plaintiff a multitude of choices in regard to where it may institute its lis, suit or action. Corporations and partnership firms, and even sole proprietorship concerns, could well be transacting business simultaneously in several cities. If subsections (a) and
(b) of [SECTION] are to be interpreted disjunctively from subsection (c), as the use of the word 'or' appears to permit the Plaintiff to file the suit at any of the places where the cause of action may have arisen regardless of whether the Defendant has even a subordinate office at [PRECEDENT] Page No. 3 of 8 that place. However, if the Defendants' location is to form the fulcrum of jurisdiction, and it has an office also at the place where the cause of action has occurred, it has been held that the Plaintiff is precluded from instituting the suit anywhere else. Obviously, this is also because every other place would constitute a forum non conveniens. This Court has harmonised the various hues of the conundrum of the place of suing in several cases and has gone to the extent of laying down that it should be courts endeavour to locate the place where the cause of action has substantially arisen and reject others where it may have incidentally arisen. [PRECEDENT] prescribes that if the Defendantcorporation has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, litigation must be instituted at that place alone, regardless of the amplitude of options postulated in [SECTION] of the [ACT]. We need not dilate on this point beyond making a reference to [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
11. We are alive to the possible incongruities that are fraught in extrapolating decisions relating to civil law onto criminal law, which includes importing the civil law concept of "cause of action" to criminal law which essentially envisages the place where a crime has been committed empowers the Court at that place with jurisdiction. In [PRECEDENT] this Court had to consider the powers of High Courts under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Noting the presence of the phrase "cause of action" therein it was clarified that [PRECEDENT] Page No. 4 of 8 since some events central to the investigation of the alleged crime asseverated in the Complaint had taken place in Mumbai and especially because the fundamental grievance was the falsity of the Complaint filed in Shillong, the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court was unquestionably available. The infusion of the concept of 'cause of action' into the criminal dispensation has led to subsequent confusion countenanced in High Courts. It seems to us that [ENTITY] allows multiple venues to the Complainant which runs counter to this Court's preference for simplifying the law. Courts are enjoined to interpret the law so as to eradicate ambiguity or nebulousness, and to ensure that legal proceedings are not used as a device for harassment, even of an apparent transgressor of the law. Law's endeavour is to bring the culprit to book and to provide succour for the aggrieved party but not to harass the former through vexatious proceedings. Therefore, precision and exactitude are necessary especially where the location of a litigation is concerned "
In the present case the plaintiff has instituted the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the loan was disbursed from the office of the plaintiff situated at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan which is situated under the jurisdiction of Police Station Paharganj; the repayment of the loan was also to be made at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension and hence part cause of action has taken place under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. [PRECEDENT] Page No. 5 of 8 I have gone though the pleadings in the plaint and the documents placed on record by the plaintiff on which they are placing its reliance and on the basis of which they are claiming that the cause of action has arisen at Delhi.
At the very Outset I may observe that the execution of the documents i.e. Master Facility Agreement and Deed of Guarantee etc. which the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff claims were executed at Videocon Tower, Delhi, actually do not appear to be executed there. Rather, it appears that these documents were only verified and screened at the branch office but not executed there with which procedure the defendant has no concern. The procedure relating to the verification and screening of the application form is an internal departmental process which is unilateral and with which the borrower has no direct or even an indirect concern. The said procedure regarding screening can take place in any of the branch offices and is done at the end of the plaintiff as a part of its internal incidental proceedings and under no circumstances it can be said that the screening of documents at Jhandewalan Office forms an Integral or Substantial part of the Cause of Action.
Secondly admittedly the defendant is neither residing nor working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the address mentioned on the memo of parties and on the Application Form confirms that the defendant no.1 M/s. [ENTITY] is having its office at 602, Meghdoot Building, 94, Nehru Place, New Delhi - [PRECEDENT] Page No. 6 of 8 110019; the defendant no.2 [ENTITY] (Director and Personal Guarantee) and the defendant no.3 [ENTITY] (Director and Personal Guarantee) are both residents of S389, Greater Kailash, PartII, New Delhi 110048 (South District) which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court (Central District) and hence does not satisfy the ingredients of [SECTION] Clauses (a) and (b) [ACT].
Lastly the Disbursement of the amount which in the terms of a banking transaction is the release or payment of the amount/ fund and is completed when it actually reaches the hands of the borrower or its authorized agent because prior to the same the borrower, at any point of time, has a right to rescind or revoke the request for loan. In the present case the Overdraft Facility was granted to the defendant to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/ (Rupees Four Lacs only). I may observe that the substantial part of cause of action arise at the place where the borrower's bank is situated, which details have not been provided in the plaint and to the court and has been deliberately withheld by the plaintiff. The Statement of Account on which the plaintiff is placing its reliance shows that the Base Branch of the defendant has been mentioned as J12/18, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027 (West District) which does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court (Central District). Further, the stamps put on the Statement of Account is of ICICI Bank Limited, Sector8, Rohini, New Delhi (NorthWest District) which again does not fall within the jurisdiction [PRECEDENT] of this Court (Central District).
I may observe that the averments made in the plaint regarding this Court having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit does not find any support or confirmation from the documents placed on record by the plaintiff and relied upon by it. A bare stereotypical routine averment in the plaint which is vague and non specific does not perse confer upon the court the Territorial Jurisdiction and it is necessary for the court to ascertain the correctness of these claims in order to ensure that the defendant/ borrower is not put to any inconvenience or harassment and upon a careful reading of the documents placed before this Court, this confirmation is not forthcoming in the present case.
In this background, I hereby hold that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff along with the original documents as per rules, for filing the same before the court of Competent Jurisdiction. Certificate of return be issued in accordance with law and file be consigned to Record Room thereafter.
Announced in the open court (Dr. [ENTITY]) Dated: 30.4.2015 [PRECEDENT] Page No. 8 of 8