M/S Krauter Health Care Ltd vs M/S Mohan Kheda Marketing Rep By Its ... on 26 July, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Krauter Health Care Ltd vs M/S Mohan Kheda Marketing Rep By Its ... on 26 July, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF JULY 
BEFORE is   A'

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND E'r"IL%iTIaEDDY Q ' I 

WRIT PETITION No. 11405   

BETWEEN:

M/s Krauter Heaithcare Ltd.

AKC Group of Companies  _ I ' -,_ , 
(A Company incorporated iunder'Lhef;*. «} V V
Companies Act, 1956)    :_
Having its RegisteIed--.Off:1ice at}   
G521, Defenc_e7_Co§}ony, _   V   V C' 
New '   "  

Representeid by.   Niatafriaj, _  C
Major, Managin.g"Di'reCtor."~.__°"=. ' '

Also at C~1i4,._SieCVtoI*~2i,i  " 
Noida, 'UtLtAaI'prad-esh'; " V' ...PETiTIONER

 / _ iB.yA  Advocate)

 -- M/s Mohan Kheda Marketing
" -T Q ' ~ .  Rep. 83}  Proprietrix,
 A ..fSInti.Rohini Devi,
 _ W/o-s.ri. Brij Mohan,
C  Aged about 51 years,
C  " Carrying on the business at:

Z



#14, M.M. Lane, Ganigarpet,
N agarathpet Cross,
Bangalore --~ 560 002.

Rep. By her son and GPA Holder
Sri. Manish Solanki,
S/0 Sri. Brij Mohan,

Aged about 28 years, :t;;'s;0ResPr)NrjgNT  

(By Shri. M.S. Purushothama Rao, Adi/ocatez)

*k$$$

This Writ Petition is filed u.n-derv-A"1*t.ic1es 226._.aI1di 227 of the
Constitution of India prayi'r1.g to q},1ash_V_th_e"«order at Annexure-E
dated 18.03.2009 passed Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore (CCCH.A}..4)t.passed in t3';S.N(3.'5710/2008.

This    Oirders this day, the Court
made the foI1iowi.:~*i1"p\§    . - 

Ai*iﬁi6RDER

Heard the 1eai'neidi.c"oii_i:se1 for the petitioner and the learned

 , 'counsel for the resp-ondeénvit.

, ., ., .0 2. .. 't.g'T.he»facts brieﬂy stated are as foIlows:-

" . "*The iptﬁttirjner herein is the defendant in a pending civil suit.

 ixffhe stiit  filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money

""0as.egdi"'A_on a Franchisee Marketing Associate agreement, dated 3 1.8.2006. The petitioner had entered appearance in the suit and had also filed an application under Order VII Rule l0 of The Code of Civil Procedure, l908(hereinafter referred to as brevity) seeking return of the plaint for presentation. ibseforer» appropriate Court, as the agreement between the part.i_es_c.or1tainied a Clause whereby the parties conferiatedvjurisdictionsit on the civil Court at Delhi in respeietiof any 'dispute oriidifferences arising under the agreement'; _wl_1ere_wthe.._p.etiti.oner is said to have its registered Office being» cornpany registered under the Companies Tlit3__ﬁ1'€S.pOtlCltE§i1t resisted the application on the ground thatapart:of,sthe_cause'lof action arose at Bangalore and therefore .vvould.:_have jurisdiction and that it was not V. necesisaryigifor the ip'iai.n.t.i.ff to withdraw the suit and present it at the Delhi, notwithstanding the Clause in the agi'eeinent.co:nferring jurisdiction to such Court. The trial Court l""".__i"*having"heard the matter at length and having agreed with the _ise'ver.a'l authorities that were cited by the learned counsel for the

-petitioner has however proceeded to accept the respondent's 5 argument that the agreement having come to an end and the petitioner herein having entrusted the marketing agency t_o___a third party and this having been done before the suit was the respondent was seeking to question the subsec;u:entV'tact the' etitioner in entrustin such marketin aiiene "'.t()-:'a'third,i"art ,"1a P 2 _8 _ ._ part of the cause of action arose at Barii'-gai'ore andiii-i.th.e'refore,"held that the suit was within its jurisdiction. _It is 'this,'whiVc;h is sought to be questioned.

3. The iitrﬂfiieditcounsei for."the~.p¢tfitioner would contend that the'iitriia1"C.ou_rt tirai{ersed'_"b'ejtond the scope of terms and conditions 2 of "between the petitioner and the respondent and-.having 'accepted the extraneous contentions that asregards the subsequent contract entered into by the l"petitione1-:"§gr,ithiV.i':;1~"third--party, has erroneously held that the Court

--V wouiid .h'aye"'ji1risdict_ion in respect of the suit"'since a part of the '..fj<:ause.ogof action has arisen within its jurisdiction. The aiiegation that there is a contract between t3 petitioner and a third party and that this was in breach of the earlier agreement would not confer jurisdiction on the Court below. Even if that contention: to be accepted, the lis between the parties arose betwfeienv under an agreement referred to above" and' 'parties7.'haVe i voluntarily conferred jurisdiction on Court 'woul'di'liaivc.a jurisdiction, then it would open contend that notwithstanding the i j ursidiction being conferred onea could yet file a civil suit in respect of a part of of action is certainly under the subsequent contract between the petitioner aiid._a vthird pa_rty,._iiwould not confer jurisdiction on the " < ,_Cot1:':ti ':be_]o:w even if of the cause of action has arisen within l":t_he j:u'riasdi.ctioiiof-'the Court. In this regard, the learned counsel forithe petitioinelr would submit that the law is well settled and ' would rest on the case on the following reported decisions:--

(1)AIR 1971 SC 740(HAKKAM SINGH .VS. M/S.GAMMON (INDIA) I.IMITI«:I)),e_*._ *_ and i' ii i (2)1989(2) scc 163(ABC LAMIAl_ilR1fwVi PRIVATE LIMITED .VS,-"A;P_.. if A SALEM ).

and therefore, would submit that thie"'~orderi.of. bad' in law and would have to, be.__quashed';

4. The learned on the other hand, wouldza produced material under cokierii toijﬁroiduce additional documents, which that there was a claim for full and final scttlemetit by' the gietitioner, which was stoutly negated by the_respo'ii_derit=herein and it is thereafter that the petitioner has tiroceedied :it(_;.._erit;ru"st the agency to a third-party and therefore, a apart of thecauise of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the i..jc.i\IiliiCourt at Bangalore and it is in this vein that the learned "i'coL:.nsel would vehemently canvass the point of View that a part of 5 cause of action having arisen Within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, there is no error committed.

5. Having regard to the above facts and the dispute is a direct off-shoot of __the._agreerneiinteibetwéen 2 parties in the first instance and "

jurisdiction on the civil Court natural' course would also have isinot 'ojaen for the parties to resiie from the agreement as to the ju1'isdict:ioiii'je;ot the Court adjudicate on any disputeivor1diffeifencei§j5erwe.e'ri meimj" "As rightly contended by the learned counsel forjitlie Vpet~i.t_ione"1' even the trial Court has accepted the legal position' with reference to the several judgments, which VW31-ellcitediatiiitlte Bar. It was an untenable argument putforth by the has however prevailed, in the trial Court

--V holding thatit would also have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. i..fSin'ce.._this Court is of the firm opinion that it is the civil Court at Delhi which would have jurisdiction, the trial Court has 5 committed an error in law while entering upon the merits of the C886.

6. Therefore, the writ petition _ iT'h.eV impugned order is quashed. The triéii Court} is-,'to__iiret1I.i'n the piaint to the respondent, wiith..__iiberéy_ to pres'ent.p:it__befiJreiithe Court having jurisdiction.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court