High Court · 2024
Case Details
CRP. No.2356 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.04. 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICRP. No. 2356 of 2023& CMP No. 14584 of 20231 VAB PHARMA A-202 Morya House Behind Crystal Plaza Off. New Andheri Link Road Andheri West Mumbai 400 053. ...PetitionerVs.1 NAVITAS LLP (Formerly known as TAKE Solutions Global LLP) No.27 Tank Bund Road Nungambakkam Chennai 34 Rep by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Agy George. ...Respondent.PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 07-01-2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in COS No.336 of 2022 on the file of 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Commercial Court Egmore Chennai and allow the CRP.For Petitioner : Mr.KrishnaFor Respondent : Mr.J.Rishikesh ORDERThis petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 07-01-2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in COS No.336 of 2022 on the file of Commercial Court Egmore Chennai and allow the CRP.2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit in C.S No. 336 of 2017 against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of sum of Rs.76,20,815/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of this suit until date of recovery of entire amount.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to business transaction with the petitioner, the defendant failed to pay the payment dues to the plaintiff in stead of the remainder made by him, after receipt of notice original suit was filed before this Court in C.S No.336 of 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed the application in I.A No.2239 of 2017 seeking leave of this court and the same was allowed thereby case pending before the commercial Court, Chennai. Immediately 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023after receipt of the notice the defendants filed the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC stating that the Trial Court has no jurisidiction to entertain the instant suit.4. The brief facts of the case:The plaintiff engaged in business of providing strategic and change management consulting, and technology service which are focused on teh clinical, Regulatory, safety and compliance domains, BPO service, outsourcing services , informantion technology services, business processing services etc.,. and the alleged transaction under in dispute was entered between the plaintiff and Concord Pharma which is an unregistered partnership firm. While so, one Nimkar introduced the plaintiff to them. Thereafter, they were interested interested in purchasing the plaintiff's software Oracle subscription licenses and business process service ( hereinafter referred to as ''Said software''). After several rounds of meetings and deliberations, proposals and counters proposals were exchange between the respondent and the representative of M/s Concord Pharma and agreed to purchase the software from the plaintiff and purchase order dated 28.02.2004 was issued in favour of Take solutions Global LLP for purchase of said software/plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the purchase order from 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023sole proprietorship from the defendant which was the legally entity so as to expedite the process. The plaintiff has placed orders for providing oracle subscription licenses and business process from the defendant. They have business transaction for three years and there is outstanding from the defendants for which the defendant issued a two cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and there was a still due from the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit before this Court and thereafter transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and re numbered as O.C No. 914 of 2019 and it sent to Commercial Court for disposal. While being so, the defendant filed the petition under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint as the Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.5. Considering the both side submissions the Trial Court held that the presentation of cheque at chennai by the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that a part of cause of action arose in chennai. Accordingly, the said petition was dismissed. Challenging the petitioner/defendant filed this petition.6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Trial Court erroneously concluded that mere presentation of cheques had occurred in chennai is not sufficient to hold that a pert of cause of action arose in chennai and it would not confer any jurisdiction to entertain the suit and also 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023it is not sufficient to hold that the defendant had involved single meeting with the plaintiff's representatives at Chennai. Further, he would submits that defendant is proprieary concern which resides or carries on business at Mumbai. Even otherwise, the learned judge failed to appreciate that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai and failed to appreciate that no cause of action, whether in whole or in part, arose in chennai. Hence, the Court at Mumbai alone having jurisdiction but the Trial Court failed to appreciate all those legal implications erroneously concluded that court at Chennai having jurisdiction to try the suit as such is liable to be set aside. Further, by miss leading the Court the plaintiff invoke jurisdiction at chennai but the same was not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, erroneously held the it is mixed question of law as such is liable to be set aside. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision.7. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that discussions, deliberation was held at Chennai where the plaintiff is having office and also purchase order placed on 26.03.2004 at Chennai and accordingly 9 invoices for a total sum of Rs.39,12,497.92/- for that amount the plaintiff issued two cheques dated 31.03.2004 and 19.05.2014 and thereafter those cheques were deposited in the ICICI bank, Chennai, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Numgambakkam branch thereafter, the there are a lot of negotiations between them due to non cooperation on the side of the defendant the plaintiff issued letter on 29.07.2015 claiming payment dues from the defendant and same was replied as false hence the business taken place at Chennai and the cause of action arose at Chennai and the Trial Judge rightly analysed the facts and law correctly concluded that Court at Chennai alone is having jurisdiction which needs no interference prayed to dismiss this petition.8. Heard both sides.9. According to the defendant/petitioner, since the defendant is proprietor concern which resides or carries on business at Mumbai and entire business transaction with plaintiff arose at Mumbai therefore the Court at Mumbai having jurisdiction to try the suit. Merely, the plaintiff presented the cheques for collection at Chennai is not sufficient to hold that part of cause of action arose in Chennai but the Trial Court erroneously taken into account of the the fact that encashment of cheque at Cheannai, is sufficient to place all jurisdiction in chennai as such is erroneous liable to be set aside. But considering the entire plaint averments the plaintiff in its entirety has stated that they placed the purchase order after several rounds 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023of negotiations and discussion. Admittedly, the plaintiff is having office at Nungambakkam, Chennai and engaged in business of providing strategic and change management consulting, and technology service which are focused on teh clinical, Regulatory, safety and compliance domains, BPO service, outsourcing services, informantion technology services, business processing services etc.,.. During the course of business one such agreement was entered with the plaintiff to purchase Ms.Oralcle America INC as business process deserving license through agreement dated 02.02.2011. Based on order the defendant placed the purchase order on 26.03.2014 the plaintiff. As discussed above, on the said order two cheques were issued towards advance and the same was presented at ICICI Bank, Nunbambakkam branch, chennai. Even the written statement filed by the defendant also admits that there was several meetings and deliberations were held before placing the purchase order along with the plaintiff, through lot of email and same was annexed. Therefore, the prime facie reveals that before filing the suit there was mail communications from the plaintiff to the defendant apart from that presentation of the cheque at ICICI bank at Nungambakkam Branch, Section 20 CPC read as follows:7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.Previous NextSubject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.10. As discussed above, the plaintiff is having office at Chennai and authorized mails communications also sent to the defendants by the plaintiff besides purchase order also placed to the plaintiff and part of the advance also paid by the defendants through cheque was presented for collection at ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam, Chennai, the prime facie reveals that the cause of action arose at Chennai, the Trial Court rightly passed the order which needs no interference of this Court.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 202311. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.04.2024pbl9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.PblCRP. No.2356 of 2023&CMP No. 11584 of 202312.04.202410
CRP. No.2356 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.04. 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVICRP. No. 2356 of 2023& CMP No. 14584 of 20231 VAB PHARMA A-202 Morya House Behind Crystal Plaza Off. New Andheri Link Road Andheri West Mumbai 400 053. ...PetitionerVs.1 NAVITAS LLP (Formerly known as TAKE Solutions Global LLP) No.27 Tank Bund Road Nungambakkam Chennai 34 Rep by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Agy George. ...Respondent.PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 07-01-2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in COS No.336 of 2022 on the file of 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Commercial Court Egmore Chennai and allow the CRP.For Petitioner : Mr.KrishnaFor Respondent : Mr.J.Rishikesh ORDERThis petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 07-01-2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in COS No.336 of 2022 on the file of Commercial Court Egmore Chennai and allow the CRP.2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit in C.S No. 336 of 2017 against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of sum of Rs.76,20,815/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of this suit until date of recovery of entire amount.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to business transaction with the petitioner, the defendant failed to pay the payment dues to the plaintiff in stead of the remainder made by him, after receipt of notice original suit was filed before this Court in C.S No.336 of 2017. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed the application in I.A No.2239 of 2017 seeking leave of this court and the same was allowed thereby case pending before the commercial Court, Chennai. Immediately 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023after receipt of the notice the defendants filed the application to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC stating that the Trial Court has no jurisidiction to entertain the instant suit.4. The brief facts of the case:The plaintiff engaged in business of providing strategic and change management consulting, and technology service which are focused on teh clinical, Regulatory, safety and compliance domains, BPO service, outsourcing services , informantion technology services, business processing services etc.,. and the alleged transaction under in dispute was entered between the plaintiff and Concord Pharma which is an unregistered partnership firm. While so, one Nimkar introduced the plaintiff to them. Thereafter, they were interested interested in purchasing the plaintiff's software Oracle subscription licenses and business process service ( hereinafter referred to as ''Said software''). After several rounds of meetings and deliberations, proposals and counters proposals were exchange between the respondent and the representative of M/s Concord Pharma and agreed to purchase the software from the plaintiff and purchase order dated 28.02.2004 was issued in favour of Take solutions Global LLP for purchase of said software/plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted the purchase order from 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023sole proprietorship from the defendant which was the legally entity so as to expedite the process. The plaintiff has placed orders for providing oracle subscription licenses and business process from the defendant. They have business transaction for three years and there is outstanding from the defendants for which the defendant issued a two cheque for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and there was a still due from the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit before this Court and thereafter transferred to City Civil Court, Chennai and re numbered as O.C No. 914 of 2019 and it sent to Commercial Court for disposal. While being so, the defendant filed the petition under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to return the plaint as the Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.5. Considering the both side submissions the Trial Court held that the presentation of cheque at chennai by the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that a part of cause of action arose in chennai. Accordingly, the said petition was dismissed. Challenging the petitioner/defendant filed this petition.6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Trial Court erroneously concluded that mere presentation of cheques had occurred in chennai is not sufficient to hold that a pert of cause of action arose in chennai and it would not confer any jurisdiction to entertain the suit and also 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023it is not sufficient to hold that the defendant had involved single meeting with the plaintiff's representatives at Chennai. Further, he would submits that defendant is proprieary concern which resides or carries on business at Mumbai. Even otherwise, the learned judge failed to appreciate that the entire cause of action arose in Mumbai and failed to appreciate that no cause of action, whether in whole or in part, arose in chennai. Hence, the Court at Mumbai alone having jurisdiction but the Trial Court failed to appreciate all those legal implications erroneously concluded that court at Chennai having jurisdiction to try the suit as such is liable to be set aside. Further, by miss leading the Court the plaintiff invoke jurisdiction at chennai but the same was not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, erroneously held the it is mixed question of law as such is liable to be set aside. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision.7. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that discussions, deliberation was held at Chennai where the plaintiff is having office and also purchase order placed on 26.03.2004 at Chennai and accordingly 9 invoices for a total sum of Rs.39,12,497.92/- for that amount the plaintiff issued two cheques dated 31.03.2004 and 19.05.2014 and thereafter those cheques were deposited in the ICICI bank, Chennai, 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Numgambakkam branch thereafter, the there are a lot of negotiations between them due to non cooperation on the side of the defendant the plaintiff issued letter on 29.07.2015 claiming payment dues from the defendant and same was replied as false hence the business taken place at Chennai and the cause of action arose at Chennai and the Trial Judge rightly analysed the facts and law correctly concluded that Court at Chennai alone is having jurisdiction which needs no interference prayed to dismiss this petition.8. Heard both sides.9. According to the defendant/petitioner, since the defendant is proprietor concern which resides or carries on business at Mumbai and entire business transaction with plaintiff arose at Mumbai therefore the Court at Mumbai having jurisdiction to try the suit. Merely, the plaintiff presented the cheques for collection at Chennai is not sufficient to hold that part of cause of action arose in Chennai but the Trial Court erroneously taken into account of the the fact that encashment of cheque at Cheannai, is sufficient to place all jurisdiction in chennai as such is erroneous liable to be set aside. But considering the entire plaint averments the plaintiff in its entirety has stated that they placed the purchase order after several rounds 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023of negotiations and discussion. Admittedly, the plaintiff is having office at Nungambakkam, Chennai and engaged in business of providing strategic and change management consulting, and technology service which are focused on teh clinical, Regulatory, safety and compliance domains, BPO service, outsourcing services, informantion technology services, business processing services etc.,.. During the course of business one such agreement was entered with the plaintiff to purchase Ms.Oralcle America INC as business process deserving license through agreement dated 02.02.2011. Based on order the defendant placed the purchase order on 26.03.2014 the plaintiff. As discussed above, on the said order two cheques were issued towards advance and the same was presented at ICICI Bank, Nunbambakkam branch, chennai. Even the written statement filed by the defendant also admits that there was several meetings and deliberations were held before placing the purchase order along with the plaintiff, through lot of email and same was annexed. Therefore, the prime facie reveals that before filing the suit there was mail communications from the plaintiff to the defendant apart from that presentation of the cheque at ICICI bank at Nungambakkam Branch, Section 20 CPC read as follows:7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023Section 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.Previous NextSubject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.10. As discussed above, the plaintiff is having office at Chennai and authorized mails communications also sent to the defendants by the plaintiff besides purchase order also placed to the plaintiff and part of the advance also paid by the defendants through cheque was presented for collection at ICICI Bank, Nungambakkam, Chennai, the prime facie reveals that the cause of action arose at Chennai, the Trial Court rightly passed the order which needs no interference of this Court.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 202311. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.04.2024pbl9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.2356 of 2023T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.PblCRP. No.2356 of 2023&CMP No. 11584 of 202312.04.202410