R.S.D.V. FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD. versus VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 03-02-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

R.S.D.V. FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
VALLABH GLASS WORKS LTD. 
FEBRUARY 3, 1993 
(KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
Section 2()-{urisdiction-Deposit Receipt containing endorsement sub-
C 
ject to jurisdiction of a particular place-Whether excludes jurisdiction of all 
other Courts otherwise competent to entertain the suit. 
Section 21( 1)-0bjection to jurisdiction-Plea before Appellate or 
Revisiona/ Court-Conditions-Whether al/ the conditions are to be fulfilled. 
Bombay Relief Undertaking (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 : 
Sections 3 and 4(l)(a)(iv)-Notification declaring relief-Undertak-
ing-Extending beyond the State immunity to Relief Undertaking from legal 
liability-Competence of State Legislature. 
The appellant deposited with the Respondent a sum or Rs. 10,00,000 
for a period or 90 days on interest @ 19% p.a. The date of maturity of the 
said deposit was 3.10.83. The deposit receipt contained an endorsement 
"Subject to Anand jurisdiction." The Respondent railed to pay the amount 
on maturity and requested the appellant to continue the said deposit till 
the end of November 1983 and handed over 5 post dated cheques for Rs. 
2,00,000 each. A cheque for interest was also given. All these cheques were 
drawn on a Bombay Bank. Since these cheques bounced back the appellant 
filed before the High Court a summary suit against the Respondent for 
recovery of the amount with interest. 
The Respondent contested the suit on the ground or jurisdiction. It 
A. 
also contested the claim for interest after maturity on the ground that 
interest ceased on maturity. The Single Judge who heard the matter 
decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with 
interest. 
455 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 1 S.C.R. 
The Respondent preferred an appeal and the Division Bench allowed 
the same and dismissed the suit. 
· Aggrieved by the ~udgment of the Division Bench, the appellant bas 
preferred the present appeal. 
B 
Allowing the apptal, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1. Admittedly, leave to defend the suit was obtained by the 
defendent from the Bombay High Court itself. Therefore, the Division 
)( 
Bench of the High Court was wrong in holding that the suit was not based 
on the five post dated cheques and that the High Court bad no jurisdiction 
C to try the suit as the .deposit receipt contained an endorsement 'Subject to 
Anand jurisdiction'. The suit Was based not only on the deposit receipt of 
Rs. 10,00,000 but also on the five post dated cheques. When the plaintiff 
bad made a request for allowing him to amend the plaint such request was 
wrongly refused by the Bench. The Division Bench was totally wrong in 
~ 
, 
D passing an order of dismissal of the suit itself when It had arrived at the 
E 
conclusion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The only 
course to be adopted in such circumstances was to return the plaint for 
pl'esentation to the proper Court and not to dismiss the suit. [462D·Fl 
1.2. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure 
provides that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any 
appellate or revisional court unless such objection was taken in the Court 
of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. This provision clearly 
lays down that such objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by 
the appellate or revisional court subject to the conditions that such 
F 
objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible 
opportunity; that in all cases where issues are settled then at or before 
. such settlement of issues; and that there bas been a consequent failu~ of 
justice. [462G-H) 
2. 
In the instant case the condition of failure of justice is uot 
G fulfilled. There was no dispute regarding the merits of the claim. The 
defendant bas admitted the deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 by the plaintiff, as well 
as the lssning of the five cheques. There is ilo. failure of justice to the 
defendant in decreeing the suit by the Single Judge. On the contrary It 
would be totally unjust and failure of justice to the plaintiff in case such 
H objection relating to jurisdiction is to be maintained as allowed by the 
RS.D.V. FINANCE v. VALLABH GLASS 
457 
Division Bench or the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. [ 463 C·D] 
A 
A.B.C. Laminaft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, [1989] 2 
SCR page 1, relied on. 
3. It

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.