THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.367 of 1994 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.946 of 1985 in the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,80,475/-. It was stated that the appellant is the public sector undertaking, having its headquarters at Nagpur, and industrial units at various places. It was alleged that the respondent was employed as Project Manager, at Chigurangunta, of Chittoor District, with effect from 20-03-1979. According to the appellant, the respondent did not account for a sum of Rs.1 lakh, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After conducting disciplinary enquiry, the respondent was removed from service, with effect from 19-09-1984. The suit was filed for recovery of the amount, together with interest. The respondent opposed the suit, by filing written-statement. He has taken objection on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. He stated that the appellant did not have the branch office at Hyderabad, and the Court at that place does not have territorial jurisdiction. Through a detailed order, dated 15-11-1993, the trial Court directed return of the plaint, by observing that it does not have territorial jurisdiction. The same is challenged in this civil miscellaneous appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the appellant has its head office at Nagpur, and the respondent was employed at a site in Chittoor District. The only basis for the appellant to file the suit in the Court at Hyderabad was, that it has a branch office at that place. Except the oral testimony of PW-1, there did not exist any material to show that the appellant had branch office at Hyderabad. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court i n Indri v. Patel Roadways[1]. In that case, it was held that, if an organization has a head office at one place, and branch office at another, a suit can be filed by it, at either of the places. As observed earlier, in the instant case, the appellant failed to prove that it has any branch office at Hyderabad. The trial Court observed that the suit could have been filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kuppam. Even before this Court, the appellant is not able to state, as to how the Court at Hyderabad, has territorial jurisdiction. The C.M.A is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24-09-2009. KO [1] (1991) 4 SCC 217