1 chs1772-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1772 OF 2010 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.2090 OF 2010 M/s.Caprihans India Limited ....Plaintiffs V/s. H.K. Printers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.S.M. Khaire for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Nilesh S. Das for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The defendants have filed this chamber summons to revoke the leave granted by this Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. The leave was sought ex-parte on the basis of the averments in paragraph 9 of the plaint, which read as under :- “9. The Plaintiffs say and submit that the purchase orders for the goods i.e. Sunvic Rigid PVC materials were placed telephonically by the Defendants with the Plaintiffs at its registered office at Bombay and same were sold and delivered by the Plaintiffs from its factory situated at Nasik to the Defendants at its factory at Vasai, Thane. The aforesaid outstanding sums under the aforesaid Invoices were payable in Bombay. The Plaintiffs are having the registered office at Bombay. The entire material cause of action has arisen in Bombay. Though the factory/office of the Defendants 2 chs1772-10 are situated at Vasai, Thane, which is outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, upon leave being granted under clause XII of Letters Patent Act, this Hon’ble Court will have jurisdiction to try and entertain this Suit.” The plaintiffs having an office in Mumbai is irrelevant. In the first sentence of paragraph 9, it is admitted that the offer was placed by the defendants with the plaintiffs at its registered office in Mumbai. It is crucial to note that the plaintiffs made the offer telephonically. The defendants admittedly are not from Mumbai. The telephone call was made from the place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In that event as the offer was allegedly made and accepted telephonically, the contract is deemed to have been made at the place where the offer was made in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. M/s.Girdharlal Parshottamdas & Co. AIR 1966, 543. 2. Thus the contract was entered into outside the jurisdiction of this Court. There is no evidence to establish that the invoice was payable in Mumbai. Admittedly, the goods were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs from their factory in Nasik. No part of cause of action therefore, has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).