1 chs898-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.898 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.579 OF 2010 Machinfabrik ....Plaintiff V/s. Biovet Private Limited & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.R.R. Singh i/b Israni & Associates for the Plaintiff. Ms.Deepti Panda with Ms.Mansi Patel i/b M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Defendant Nos.1. And 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is an application for revocation of leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent granted by an order dated 28.1.2010. 2. The suit is filed to recover the balance price of the goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defendants placed the purchase order on the plaintiff in Mumbai. The goods were supplied pursuant thereto. Absent anything else, it is obvious that the offer was accepted by the defendants in Mumbai. The contract was entered into in Mumbai. The same itself constituted a material part of the cause of action. The payments were also to be made at Mumbai, as 2 chs898-10 expressly stipulated in the invoices. There is no warrant therefore, for revoking the leave granted by the learned Judge. 3. The contention that this Court ought not to exercise the jurisdiction in view of clause 10 of the purchase order, is also not well founded. 4. I will for the present purpose ignore the terms stipulated in the invoice including that the transactions are subject to Mumbai jurisdiction. It would make no difference as clause 10 of the purchase order merely states that :- “10. Jurisdiction : All disputes are subject to Bangalore only”. The clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of the other Courts. In any event, in view of what is stated earlier, there is no reason not to exercise territorial jurisdiction. 5. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is dismissed.