Bangalore District Court
M/S.Coastliners Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd on 22 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 22nd day of March 2016.
O.S.No.9153/2013
PLAINTIFF : M/s.Coastliners Pvt. Ltd.,
No.415, 4th Floor, Sharee Complex,
No.73, St.John's Road, Bangalore-560
042. Rep. by its Vice President-Finance
Sri P.P.Venkataramana
S/o.P.Y.Poovani
Aged about 62 years.
(By Sri K.Y., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. M/s.Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd.,
Door Oliver House
Chakala
Andheri East,
Mumbai-400 099
Rep. by its Managing Director
2. Mr.S.C.Sekaran
Executive Director
M/s.Hindustan Door Oliver Ltd.,
Dorr Oliver House
Chakala
Andheri East,
Mumbai-400 099.
3. Mr.Girish Dave
Finance Head
M/s.Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd.,
Dorr Oliver House
2 OS No.9153/2013
Chakala
Andheri East,
Mumbai-400 099.
4. Mr.Kiran Thakur
Logistic head
M/s.Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd.,
Dorr Oliver House
Chakala,
Andheri East
Mumbai-400 099.
(Ex-parte )
Date of Institution of the Suit: 17.12.2013
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Money Suit
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 18.10.14
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 22.3.2016
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
02 03 05
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.15,43,625/- from the defendants with interest at 16% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization, to award costs of the suit and to pass such other reliefs. 3 OS No.9153/2013
2. The plaint averments in brief is that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is a valued logistic provider having its office in various states of the Country. The plaintiff is specialized in transportation of various good mainly of uneven sizes as it is specialized services officered by it. The defendant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is represented by its directors, etc., The Company by name M/s.Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd was regularly obtaining the services of the plaintiff and they had two units situated in Mumbai and subsidiary branch situated at Ahmedabad known as Vatvaworks. Both the units are involved in manufacturing of industrial products for which transportation services were required and the services offered by the plaintiff were utilized by it from time to time. The plaintiff company has raised invoices on the defendants as and when the services were afforded after the purchase order is submitted by the defendants. The plaintiff was following up with the defendant No.1 for release of payment which was overdue and despite several reminders, the outstanding amount was not remitted by the defendants. Upon the failure to make the payment 4 OS No.9153/2013 despite regular reminders, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.13.12.12 to the defendants (1) to (4) calling upon them to make immediate payment. In response to the said notice the defendant vide their reply dt.21.12.12 stated that claim of the plaintiff was not correct and invited the plaintiff for reconciling the books of accounts between two different branches one was situated at Mumbai and another one is at Vatva, Ahmedabad. It was brought to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the unit running in Vatva, Ahmedabad got demerged as per the order passed in Company Scheme Petition No.326/12 on the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai. Therefore, the earlier notices issued by the plaintiff making both the units liable to pay for the dues stood modified. The claim of the Vatva Ahmedabad unit has been pursued separately by the plaintiff in O.S. No.5157/13 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore as such the claim in this case is related to, the transaction in respect of Mumbai Unit only. The defendants out of the outstanding amount of Rs.21,71,200/- which was legally due from them paid the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,71,643/- on 10.1.13. The plaintiff sent a letter dt.18.2.13 to the defendant along with the list of 5 OS No.9153/2013 overdue outstanding along with bill wise details and requested for reconciliation. The defendants neither replied for the above said letter nor initiated the protocol for reconciliation. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.26.7.13 through registered post acknowledgement due to all the defendants calling upon the defendants to pay the arrears amount legally due to the plaintiff being a sum of Rs.13,88,972/- and a sum of Rs.1,89,415/- being the interest calculated up to 31.7.13 at 16% per annum within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The plaintiff had indicated that if the defendants fail to comply with the said notice they would initiate legal action and also would initiate winding up proceedings as per the provisions of Section 433 of Indian Companies Act 1956 against the defendants. Despite in receipt of the said notice dt.26.7.13 the defendants have come forward to make any payment. The transaction between the parties is commercial in nature and as per the agreed terms, the defendants are liable o pay interest on the belated payment at the rate of 24% p.a. Therefore the defendants are liable to pay interest apart from the principle amount agreed by them. As per the ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff the amount payable by the 6 OS No.9153/2013 defendants as on 15.10.13 is at Rs.11,99557/- and interest calculated at 24% is at Rs.3,44,067.91. The defendants ought to have paid the legitimately payable amount which is a legal debt and despite demand and reminders the defendants have failed to make the payment. The amount payable by the defendants are arising out of the transportation services offered by the plaintiff for which they have already incurred huge expenses in providing services to the defendants, despite due opportunities the defendants have miserably failed to make the payment and have unnecessarily dragged the plaintiff into the litigation to recover the amount. Therefore having no other alternative, the plaintiff has approached this Court to recover the amount which is legitimately payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
The details of claims are as follows:-
A As per the account Rs.11,99,557/-
extract/outstanding amount
B As per the interest calculated Rs.3,44,067.91/-
from 19.12.11 to 15.10.13 in
respect of the above
TOTAL Rs.15,43,625/-
So, prays to decree the suit.
7 OS No.9153/2013
3. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared before this court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the first defendant has whenever it has utilized the services of the plaintiff for transportation has paid for the services so utilized and it is on item wise basis and not on a regular running basis and the first defendant has paid for the services availed by it and the claim of the plaintiff that the amounts are overdue as stated in the plaint is incorrect and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Even according to the plaint, entire transaction has taken place in the State of Maharastra and Gujarat and no art of the transaction has taken place in Bangalore and further, the defendants does not have any place of business in Bangalore and does not carry on any business in Bangalore and therefore, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the above suit. Among other grounds, the defendant has prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office:-
8 OS No.9153/2013
1. Whether he plaintiff proves that it was regularly providing services to the defendant and had raised invoices on the defendant as and when the services were offered after the purchase order is submitted by the defendants?
2. Whether the defendant proves that the entire transaction has taken place in the state of Maharastra and Gujarat and defendant has no place of business at Bangalore and so this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
3. Whether the defendant further proves that it has made al the payments to the plaintiff in respect of the services availed by it?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,43,625/- from the defendant with interest at 16% p.a.?
5. What decree or order?
5. The plaintiff company has examined its General Manager Finance as P.W.1 and got marked seventeen documents at Exs.P.1 to P.17. On the other hand the defendants have examine authorized signatory of 1st defendant as DW-1 and got marked one document at Ex.D.1.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
9 OS No.9153/2013
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE No.1 - Do not arise for consideration ISSIE No.2 - In the Affirmative ISSIE No.3 - Do not arise for consideration ISSIE No.4 - In the negative ISSIE No.5 - As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.2:- For the sake of convenience firstly I would like to take up this issue for consideration. The defendant in his written statement at para No.9(b) taken contention that the entire transaction has taken place in the state of Maharastra and Gujarat and defendant has no place of business at Bangalore and so this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
9. Inview of the transactions involved in this suit to decide whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the suit or not the Section 20 of C.P.C. has to be seen. The Section 20 of C.P.C. reads thus:
10 OS No.9153/2013
Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises- Subject 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 work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
(xxx) (Explanation)-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.11 OS No.9153/2013
10. The plaintiff contended that the cause of action has arisen on 11.7.2012 when a bill bearing No.B13038 was raised on the defendant and on all subsequent dates thereof including the issuance of legal notice dt.26.7.2013 the suit has been filed within the period of limitation, the defendants have failed to make the payment despite of issue of legal notice, hence this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
11. On perusal of the cause title of the defendants shows that it is situated in Mumbai where the defendants carries their business. The Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 are the purchase orders of the 1st defendant and the pick up point was Rabale, Nhava sheva and Chennai respectively and the destination points were Tuticorin, Vatva and Jaipur respectively.
12. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 as under;
"As per Ex.P.2 the pick up point was Rabale and destination is Zirconium, Tuticorin. As per Ex.P.3 the pick up point was Nhava sheva and the destination point was Vatva, both at Gujarath. As per 12 OS No.9153/2013 Ex.P.4 the pick up point was Chennai, Tamil Nadu and the destination point was Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is true that all the destinations that are mentioned in Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 are not in Karnataka and they do not come under the jurisdiction of Bangalore."
13. The DW-1 during the course of the cross-
examination admitted that the defendant No.1 do not have branch in Bangalore. So, the defendants actually and voluntarily resides and carries on business in Mumbai and the pickup points was Rabale, Nhava sheva and Chennai and their destination points are Tuticorin, Vatva and Rajasthan respectively. These places are not in Karnataka and they do not come under the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bangalore. So, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. So also, the plaintiff has not stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Hence this Court has no jurisdiction to try this Suit. So, issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.1 and 3:- When I came to the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit then 13 OS No.9153/2013 question of considering these issues do no arise. Hence, issue No.1 and 3 as do not arise for consideration.
15. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of my finding on Point No.2 in the Affirmative, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be dismissed without costs. Hence, issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
16. ISSUE NO.5:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of March 2016).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 P.P.Venkataramana
14 OS No.9153/2013
b) Defendant's side:
D.W.1 Philomena Joseph
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Board resolution
Ex.P.2 - 4 Three purchase orders
Ex.P.5 Original invoice
Ex.P.6 Purchase order
Ex.P.7 & 8 Two office copies of legal notice
Ex.P.9 Four postal receipts
Ex.P.10 - 13 Four postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.14 ledger extra of defendants
transaction
Ex.P.15 Interest calculation sheet
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of reply given by
defendant No.2
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of reply given by
defendant
b) defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Original General Power of Attorney
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
15 OS No.9153/2013
22.3.2016
P-KY
D1 to D4-BNS
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate order.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 16 OS No.9153/2013