1 chs1496-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1496 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1594 OF 2010 Nishotech Systems Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. ....Defendant Mr.Tejas Vora i/b G.K. Vora & Sagar Kasar for the Plaintiff. Mr.Vishal Kanade with Mr.Faisal Sayyed and Ms.Vishnupriya Kumar i/b Manilal Kher Ambalal for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. By consent the chamber summons is placed on board and heard finally. 2. The plaintiff obtained the leave under clause XII of the Letters Patent. The leave was obtained ex-parte. The defendant has therefore taken out the chamber summons for revocation. 3. Paragraph 30 of the plaint, which deals with the jurisdiction, reads as under :- “30. At the relevant time i.e. at the time of entering into the contract, the registered office of the Plaintiffs was situate at 107, Vardhaman, LBS Marg, Mulund, Mumbai – 400 083 i.e. in Mumbai. The order 2 chs1496-10 was placed by the Defendants at the registered offices of the Plaintiffs at Mumbai. The invoice-cum-challan dated 5th January 2009 was raised by the Plaintiffs at Mumbai. However, the said goods i.e. MP-4 UF Membranes with accessories were to be installed at Pune i.e. at the premises of Tata Motors Limited, as per the instructions of the Defendants, who are having their registered office at Calcutta and as the Agreement was entered into at Mumbai for the supply of the said goods at Pune at the instance of the Defendants, hence the material cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. In view thereof, on plaintiffs obtaining leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, this Hon’ble Court will have jurisdiction to receive, try, entertain and dispose of the present Suit on its original side.” 4. Paragraph 30 merely proceeded on the basis that “the agreement was entered into at Mumbai”. It does not state how the contract was entered into at Mumbai. 5. The purchase order was placed by the defendant at the plaintiff’s office in Navi Mumbai, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Kanade, the purchase order was therefore accepted by the plaintiff in Navi Mumbai and not at the plaintiff’s registered office in Mumbai. There is not a whisper in the plaint to the effect that the purchaser order was accepted by the plaintiff in Mumbai. The purchase order having been sent to the defendant at Navi Mumbai office absent any evidence, the presumption is that it was accepted at the place where the offer / purchase order was sent viz. at Navi Mumbai. 6. The goods were also supplied from Navi Mumbai to Pune. 7. In th circumstances, no part of cause of action has arisen in 3 chs1496-10 Mumbai. 8. In the circumstances, the contract, as rightly submitted on behalf of the defendant, was entered into in Navi Mumbai. The office is therefore, directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the appropriate Court. This order is stayed for the period of eight weeks from today.