LexM/S. SOUTH EAST ASIA SHIPPING CO. LTD. versus M/S. NAV BHARAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S. SOUTH EAST ASIA SHIPPING CO. LTD. A v. M/S. NAY BHARAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. MARCH 13, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 20(c). Suit-Jurisdiction-Cause of action-Contract executed at Bom- bay-f'eifonnance of contract also required to be done at Bombay-Bank guaralltee in furtherance of contract executed at Delhi-Transmission of C guarantee to Bombay for peifonnance of contract-Suit filed in Delhi High Court seeking perpetual injunction against enforcing bank guarantee-Held not maintainable-Held no part of cause of action had wisen at Delhi-Held execution of bank guarantee at Delhi and transmission to Bombay for pe1for- mance of contract does not constitute cause of action to lay suit in D Delhi-Retum of plaint for presentation· to proper Court held correct. Cause of action-Meaning of-Held consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress. ABC Laminwt Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.A.P. Agencies, Salem, [1989) 2 SCC E 163, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1116 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.80 of the Delhi High Court F in F.A.O. (OS) No. 56 of 1979. R.S. Sodhi, (NP) for the Appellant. Mrs. AK. Verma for JED & Co., The following Order of the Court was delivered : G ._.. • This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made on February 19, 1980 in FAO (OS) No. 56/79. The respondents had filed a suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for perpetual injunction against the appellant from enforcing H 405 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R. A bank guarantee dated July 16, 1977. The learned single Judge held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal, the Division Bench concluded that since the bank guarantee was executed in Delhi and payments were to be made in Delhi, the High Court B has jurisdiction to try the suit and the direction of the learned single Judge to return the plaint for presentation to the Proper Court was not correct in law. Thus this appeal by special leave. The only controversy is whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdic- tion to entertain the suit. It is an admitted position that the contract was C executed in Bombay. It is also an admitted position that the performance of obligations and liabilities under the contract was required to be done in Bombay inasmuch as Cargo of livestock was to be transported in the ship from Kandla to Daman or Jeddah. It is also an admitted position that in furtherance of the execution of the contract at Bombay, the respondents D had executed the bank guarantee at Delhi and had transmitted it to Bombay for performance of the contract. The question, therefore, is whether any part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon a judgment of this Court in r ABC Laminait Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, [1989] 2 SCC 163 to contend that since part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi, the E High Court on the original side has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We are unable to accept the contention. It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a court of law. The F cause of action means, therefore, every fact, which if traosversed, it would -y be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue G or would arise. In view of the admitted position that contract was executed in Bombay, i.e., within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay, performance of the contract was also to be done within the jurisdiction of • ~ the Bombay High Court; merely because bank guarantee was executed at Delhi and transmitted for performance to Bombay, it does not constitute H a c~use of action to give rise to the respondent to lay the suit on the original SOUTH EAST ASIA SHIPPING CO. LTD.'· NAY BHARAT ENTERPRISES PVf. LTD. 407 side of the Delh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.