*1* LP-886-11.sxw Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION LEAVE PETITION NO.886 OF 2011 IN SUMMARY SUIT (LODGING) NO.3168 OF 2011 Stationery Point India Ltd. ... Plaintiffs V/s. Nevitad Distillers Pvt. Ltd. ... Defendants Mr. Shamrao Gore, i/b. Mr. S.V. Masurkar, for the Plaintiffs. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14 th December, 2011. P.C. : 1. Mentioned. Not on Board. 2. Heard. 3. This is a Petition for Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Upon the attention of the Plaintiffs’ Advocate being invited to the allegations in the plaint and the contents of the annexures and particularly the invoices, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits “A-1” to “A-15”, it is stated that although these invoices contained the stipulation “subject to Satara jurisdiction”, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.B. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P. Agencies Salem, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239, the parties have not conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court at Satara. Further, as has been pointed out in para 10 of the plaint, that the Plaintiffs have their office at Bombay and the Defendants carry on business at Ulhasnagar, the negotiations in respect of supply of goods took place at Bombay, the cheques were deposited and payable by the Defendants in *2* LP-886-11.sxw Bombay, therefore, no cause of action has arisen at Satara, save and except the works/factory of the Plaintiffs is at Satara. It is really on these averments in the plaint and the statement of the Plaintiffs’ Advocate, that the Plaintiffs do not wish to present the plaint at Satara because, in their submission, the Court at Satara is not conferred exclusive jurisdiction either by Agreement or otherwise in law, and that leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent be granted. Accordingly, leave is granted. 4. The Leave Petition is made absolute accordingly. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)