IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 WRIT PETITION NO. 4418 OF 2006 OF 2006 OF 2006 Aurangabad Central Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited ...Respondent Mr.K.S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr.D.R. Talankar for the Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the First Co-operative Court at Mumbai whereby the Co-operative Court was pleased to allow the dispute which was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs.9,84,000/- with interest. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein by filing an appeal before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. The appeal was also dismissed and the order of the trial Court is confirmed. - 2 - 3. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the exparte order was passed by the trial court and in appeal this point was also urged in the appeal memo. It is submitted that the appellate Court erred in confirming the finding recorded by the trial Court on the question of service of summons. It is submitted that the entire cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad, therefore, Co-operative Court in Mumbai has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the dispute which was filed by the respondent. He invited my attention to the Agreement and submitted that it was signed at Aurangabad. 4. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. So far as service of summons in concerned, the petitioner’s counsel has specifically given up this ground while making a submission before the appellate court and the appellate court has recorded this fact in its judgment and order. The Appellate Tribunal has recorded that the Counsel for the petitioner herein had categorically - 3 - stated the she was pressing the appeal only on the point of jurisdiction. The first submission, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. So far as the second submission on the point of jurisdiction is concerned, the Courts have recorded the finding that the respondent herein has its head office at Mumbai and all the major decisions are taken at Mumbai. Thus, though it is possible that the contract was signed at the Divisional office at Aurangabad but the major decisions are taken at its head office at Mumbai. Therefore, the Co-operative Court obviously has jurisdiction to try and decide the case and hence, this submission also cannot be accepted. No case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by both the courts below. 6. Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)