SANDEEP POLYMERS PVT.LTD. versus BAJAJ AUTO LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 20-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

):-
SANDEEP POLYMERS PVT.LTD. 
A 
v. 
BAJAJ AUTO LTD. AND ORS. 
JULY 20, 2007 
[DR. ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.J 
B 
.. 
,l(, 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. 7. rr. 8, JO, 108, I I-Distinct causes of action-Jurisdiction of c 
Court-Sult for damages for breach of agreement stated to be for lifetime 
supply and of various purchase orders flied at Nagpur-Defendants I plea 
that the purchase orders clearly provided for jurisdiction of Court at Pune 
with an ouster clause-Before Supreme Court plaintiff submllt/ng to file 
another suit at Pune as regards the relevant purchase orders and to amend 
.> 
plaint In suit flied In court at Nagpur-Prayer allowed-Directions given 0 
>----
accordingly. 
The plalntlff·Appellant flied a special civil suit against the defendant· 
Respondents for recovery of damages for breach of contract. The stand of the 
plalntlfT was that It, having Its manufacturing unit at Nagpur, was ~ngaged In 
manufacture of high precision plastic component specially for use by E 
automobile Industry. The defendants entered Into an agreement with the, 
plalntlfTfor lifetime supply of Its products. Thereafter, the plalntlfT made huge 
Investments at Nagpur and had been supplying Its products to defendant no. t 
. 
for two decades. Defendant no. I, by his letter dated 3.t 1.1999, which was 
I 
~ 
i 
received by the plaintiff at Nogpur on 11.11.1999 terminated Its agreement 
( 
F 
with the plalntlfT, as a result of which the machineries Installed at Nagpur by 
the plaintiff speclncolly for supply of products to defendant no. 1 were 
rendered of no use; and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages. 
Defendant no. l contended that the agreement was executed at Pune and 
supplies by the plaintiff were made to It at Pune/Aurangabad, I.e. outside the· 
territorial jurisdiction of the civil court at Nagpur, It was further averred G 
that parties by consent had restricted the jurisdiction to Pune ~ourt only and 
--f 
the same was reflected In all the purchase orders. The trial court observed 
that the suit was outcome ofthe damages caused to the unit of the plaintiff 
because of the breach of the contract and the letter of termination was received 
437 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A by the plaintiff at Nagpur. It, therefore, held that the cause of action to Ole the 
--+-
1ult arose at Nagpur and directed the suit to proceed. Before the High Court 
In the revision petition, defendant no. I submitted that substantial part of the 
claim arose our of four purchase orders placed by defendant no. 1 with the 
plaintiff all the purchase orders ousted the Jurisdiction or all courts except 
B the court at Pune. and except the said purchase orders there was no other 
written contract. The High Court directed retum of the plaint as, In Its opinion, 
the court at Na1pur had no Jurisdiction to entertain a part of the claims made 
In the suit. 
)L 
~
In the Instant appeal med by the plaintiff It was submitted on behalf of 
c the appellant that a separate suit would be Oled In relation to purchase orders 
at Pune and necessary amendments to the plaint ftled at Nagpur would be 
made. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: (I) It shall be open to the appellant to Ole a separate suit In 
relation to cause of action If any relatln1 for the purchase orders, at Pune. 
.. 
~ 
(2) If the appellant Is so advised It may move for amendment of the suit 
~ 
at Nagpur. 
E 
(3) It shall be open to the respondents-defendants to raise all objections 
and take such pleas as are available In law. (Para 14( (4Sl-l>·El 
Sopan Sukhdeo Sabia and Ors. v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and 
Ors., (200413 SCC 137; Om Prakash Srlvostava v. Union of Indio and Anr., 
(2006) 3 Supp. SCR 803 .. (2006( 6 SCC 207, relied on. 
F 
Hakom Singh v. Mis Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR (1971) SC 740; Hanll 
~ 
Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatlc Filters (P) Ltd., (200411 Supp. SCR 333•(2004( 
4 SCC 671; and New Moga Transport Compan)1 v. United India Insurance 
Co. Ltd. And Ors., (2004) J Supp. SCR 623m(2004) 4 SCC 677, cited. 
0 
Halsbury Lows o/Englond (Fourth Edition), referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7749 of 2004. 
H' 
~-
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.07 .2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Revision No. 989 of 
H 2001. 
SANDEEPPOL YMERS PVT. LTD. v. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 
439 
.>: 
V.R. Reddy, Dhruv Agarwal and Praveen Kumar for the Appellant. 
A

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