Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mool Chand vs Rajendra Kumar And Anr on 31 July, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 771/2009
Shri Moolchand Jain s/o Shri Bahadurmal Ji, aged 57 years, b/c
Oswal, r/o Ist "B" Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain s/o Shri Pukhraj Ji (Sancheti),
Joindry Capital Services Limited, Mahaveer Market, Tripolia
Bazar, Jodhpur.
2. Joindry Capital Services Limited through its Chairman &
Managing Director, 32, Bahadur Mansion, 31 A & B, Ambalal
Doshi Marg, Fort, Mumbai.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 768/2009
Mool Chand
----Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar And Anr.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 769/2009
Mool Chand
----Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar And Anr.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 770/2009
Mool Chand
----Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar And Anr.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.P. Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Samdaria
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (2 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] Reserved on 25/07/2019 Pronounced on 31/07/2019
1. The appellant has preferred these misc. appeals claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
" ¼1½ vkns'k vnkyr ekrgr fooknd la[;k 3] 4] 5 fujLr Qjek;k tkosa] ¼2½ cgd vihykUV f[kykQ jsLiksMsUV ewy/ku 62]194-60@& o rkjh[k 16-01-2001 o 23-01-2001 rd bl jkf'k ij C;kt :i;s 44]805- 40@& dqy :i;s 1]07]000@& o rkjh[k nkok ls rkjh[k olwyh rd ewy /ku ij 24 izfr'kr C;kt olwyh dk vkns'k o fMdzh; e; [kpZ QjekbZ tkosaA ¼3½ vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k vihykUV ds gd esa mfpr gks fnyk;k tkosA "
2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that respondents No.2 is the member of the Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange and conduct the trade in sale and purchase of shares through respondent No.1.
3. The appellant agreed upon selling his shares through the respondents, and particularly, agreed upon the condition that the interest @ 24% per annum shall be charged on the amount due to the appellant whenever the same is returned. However, when the amount was not returned, the dispute arose.
4. The respondents took a plea that they had a contract note bearing the signatures of the appellant, and therefore, on account of such contract note, the jurisdiction shall lie with the Courts in the Mumbai territory only.
5. The appellant pleaded that he did not sign any contract note or the bills, and therefore, the transactions between the parties have to be seen as completed here in Jodhpur itself.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM)(3 of 14) [CMA-771/2009]
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 20 of the CPC, which reads as under:
"20.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."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below, on the ground that the court at Jodhpur does not have jurisdiction, is unlawful as the defendant resides in Jodhpur, and the contract was signed at Jodhpur and all the transactions between the parties had happened in Jodhpur itself.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned court below framed eight issues, out of which issue No.3 was pertaining to the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter; issue No.4 was relating to the determination of rights by the arbitrator and; issue No.5 was whether the appellant is trading (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (4 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] in the share market. Issues No.3, 4 and 5 have been dealt with by the learned court below in the impugned order dated 29.01.2009 in the following manner:
"fofu'p; fook|d la[;k& 3] 4] 5 %& 17& bu rhuksa fook|dksa dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij gSa] bl laca/k esa oknh dk ;g dguk gS fd oknh us tks/kiqj 'kgj esa izfroknhx.k dks 'ks;lZ cSps vkSj budh jkf'k mlds [kkrsa esa tek gks xbZ] ftl jkf'k dk e; C;kt ds olwyh dk nkok gksus ls bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks izkIr gSA mlus viuh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd nkok djus ls iwoZ mlus th ls ,p izn'kZ&2 dh bZckjr ds ckjs esa lykg mlds vf/koDrk ls dh Fkh] mlds vf/koDrk us mls crk;k Fkk fd mUgksaus LVkWd ,Dlpsat ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ls o fu;eksa dks i< dj ;g tkudkjh ys yh gS fd ekeyk :i;ksa dh olwyh dk gS] u fd cSpku fd;s x;s 'ks;j dh DokfUVfV] dkbZUM vkQ flD;ksfjVh] lsy jsV] czksdst] jsV ekbUl czksdst] o usV jsV ,.M ,ekmaV dk gSa] bl dkj.k jkf'k dks izfrokfn;ksa us mlds [kkrs esa tek dj nh Fkh vkSj tek jkf'k e; C;kt ekaxus ij ugha ykSVk;h bl dkj.k :i;ksa dh olwyh dk nkok gSaA dEiuh ,DV esa nkok is'k fd;k tk ldrk gSa ;k ugha ;g og ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dEiuh ,DV dh /kkjk 10 esa flfoy dksVZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj u gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dksUVªsDV uksV ij iapfu.kZ; dk fy[k gks] bl dkj.k nkos dk fu.kZ; iapksa ls djok;k tkuk vko';d gksA 18& blds foijhr izfroknh dk tokcnkos esa ;g dguk gS fd oknh dks okn dkj.k tks/kiqj esa iSnk ugha gksrk] D;ksafd 'ks;lZ dh cdk;k jkf'k gsrq dksUVªsDV uksV ds rgr okn nk;j fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA izfroknh ds dksUVªsDV uksV ij fy[kh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj nkok cEcbZ esa nk;j fd;k tk ldrk gSaA oknh dks izfroknh ls 'ks;lZ ds :i;s izkIr djus gsrq dEiuh fu;r o dksUVªsDV esa Nih 'krksZ ds vuqlkj iap fu.kZ; gsrq tkuk pkfg,A {kS=kf/kdkj cEcbZ esa gksuk fcy oxSjk ij vafdr gSa] blfy, nkok [kkfjt fd;k tkos vkSj dEiuh ,DV dh /kkjk 10 ds rgr okn dh lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gSA lk{; esa Mh-M- &1 jktsUnz dqekj us vius eq[; ijh{k.k ds 'kiFk i= ds pj.k (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (5 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] la[;k &9 esa ;g dgk gs fd oknh us 'ks;lZ LVkWd ,Dlpsat ds tfj;s cSps] ftldh jkf'k mlds [kkrsa esa tek dj nhA LVkWd ,Dlpsat ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj ;fn dksbZ fookn djrk gSa rks mldk fuiVkkjk e/;LFk }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gSaA pj.k la[;k 11 esa Hkh ;g dgk x;k gSa fd dksUVªsDV uksV o fcy esa Li"V :i ls fy[kk gSa fd fookn gksus ij {kS=kf/kdkj cEcbZ esa gksxk ,oa lHkh izdkj ds Dyse o fookn] erHksn iapfu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls gy fd;s tk;saxsA ;s 'krsZ dksUVªsDV uksV izn'kZ , 3 esa lh ls Mh Hkkx esa {kS=kf/kdkj ckcr fy[kh gqbZ gSaA izfroknh }kjk fd;s x;s mDr dFku ftjg esa [kf.Mr ugha gks ik;s gSA 19& mDr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us ;g cgl dh gSa fd mldk nkok dsoy ek= 'ks;lZ ds cSpku ls izkIr gqbZ tek jkf'k dh olwyh dk gSa] bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj izkIr gS] tcfd izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g dguk gS fd bl U;k;ky; dks bl okn dk lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj ugha gS] mUgksaus bl lac/k esa fcy] dkUVªsDV uksV ij Nih 'krksZ dh vksj /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k vkSj viuh cgl dh iqf"V esa fuEu uthjksa esa izfrokfnr fl)kUrksa ij Hkjkslk fd;k gS%&
1. 2008(4) C.C.C. 196 (SC).
2. AIR 2000 S.C. 1886.
3. 2003(3) DNJ (S.C.) 755.
4. 2007 DNJ S.C. 167.
20& eSaus cgl ij euu fd;k] voyafcr uthjksa dk lEekuiwoZd iBu fd;kA oknh us izfrokkfn;ksa dks dksbZ udn jkf'k ;k pSd ds tfj;s jkf'k tek ugha djok;h gSa] oju nkokd`r jkf'k 'ks;jksa dks cSpus ls izkIr gqbZ jkf'k gSA] tks izfrokfn;ksa us oknh ds 'ks;j [kjhn Qjks[r ds [kkrs esa tek dh gSa] vr% ;g jkf'k 'ks;jksa dh jkf'k gS vkSj ;g jkf'k oknh dks fcy izn'kZ& 1 o 2 ds tfj;s feyhA fcy izn'kZ 1 o 2 ij gh , ls ch 'ArZ Nih gSa] ftlesa ;g vafdr gSa fd fookn dk fujkdj.k cEcbZ dks gksxkA vr% ftu fcyksa ds tfj;s oknh dks jkf'k feyh] mu ij 'krsZ vafdr gSa fd fookn dh fLFkfr esa {kS=kf/kdkj cEcbZ dks gksxk] rks fQj ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd bl jkf'k dh olwyh dk nkok lquus dk {kS=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks mRiUu gksrk gksA ;|fi dksUVªsDV uksV izn'kZ , 3 esa Hkh tks 'krsZ Nih gSa] muds vuqlkj Hkh fookn dk {kS=kf/kdkj cEcbZ U;k;ky; dks gksxk vafdr gSa] ijUrq izn'kZ , 3 ij oknh ds gLrk{kj lkfcr ugha gq, gS] ijUrq fookn blesa (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (6 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] 'ks;lZ dh jkf'k dks ysdj gh gSa] uxn vFkok pSd ds tfj;s tek djok;h xbZ jkf'k dk dksbZ fookn ugha gS] bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks bl okn dh lquokbZ dk {kS=kf/kdkj gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSa vkSj tc U;k;ky; dks {kS=kf/kdkj gh ugha gS rks fQj ;g U;k;ky; ekeys ds e/;LFk dks Hkh jsQj ugha dj ldrk vkSj {kS=kf/kdkj ds vHkko esa U;k;ky; vuqrks"k iznku ugha dj ldrkA oknh fu;ekuqlkj nkok okfil ysdj l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k pkjktksgh djus ds fy, Lora= gSa] bl lac/k esa izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us tks uthjsa izLrqr dh gSa] muesa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks n`f"Vxer j[krs gq, ;g U;k;ky; 'ks;lZ dh jkf'A o 'ks;lZ ds eqrfyd fookn gksus ls oknh dks dksbZ vuqrks"k iznku ugha dj ldrkA vr% fook|d la[;k 3] 4 o 5 izfroknhx.k ds i{k esa oknh ds fo:) a a afofuf'pr fd;s tkrs gSA "
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in M/s. Hindustan Metals, Jodhpur Vs. M/s. Vishal Goods Transport Co. & Anr., reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan 248, relevant portion of which reads as under:
"17. Thus it is settled law that the jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action wholly or partly arises cannot be taken away by the choice of the party to the contract merely on the basis of the condition printed on the bills or the bilty as the case may be. The parties cannot create a jurisdiction in the Court in whose territorial jurisdiction no cause of action has at all arisen. In the instant case, the cause of action do arise to the appellant plaintiff at Jodhpur and the suit has rightly been instituted at the Court situated at Jodhpur. In the instant case the defendants failed to establish that if the said suit is tried in the Courts at Jodhpur it would result in failure of justice. Admittedly, the defendant's Branch Office is situated at Jodhpur from where the goods are (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (7 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] transported and the defendants are carrying on their business of career/transportation. Admittedly goods were booked and handed over to the defendants for transportation to M/s. Modi Steel at Jodhpur Branch Office and under these circumstances by contesting the case At Jodhpur no failure of justice would occasion to the defendants.
18. In my considered opinion, the first appellate court fell in error by holding that Jodhpur Court has no jurisdiction and the courts at Delhi only had jurisdiction. This part of finding is against the well settled law and, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. No other point was pressed.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order impugned dated 23rd Aug. 1984 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No. 25/81 is hereby set aside and quashed and the judgment and decree passed by trial court dated 24.9.1981 is hereby restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case in which exemplary cost is to be awarded as the appellant-plaintiff has unnecessarily been dragged in litigation. I therefore, quantify the cost at Rs. 1,500/-."
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., reported in AIR 1993 SC 2094, relevant portion of which reads as under:
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (8 of 14) [CMA-771/2009]
"7. . . . . . . . . It may be further noted that the
Learned Single Judge trying the suit had recorded a finding that the Bombay Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. Sub- sec.(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 and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement and unless there has been consequent failure of justice. The above 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 following conditions :-
(i) That such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity;
(ii) in all cases where issues are settled then at or before such settlement of issues;
(iii) there has been a consequent failure of justice.
8. In the present case though the first two conditions are satisfied but the third condition of failure of justice is not fulfilled. As already mentioned above there was no dispute regarding the merits of the claim. The defendant has admitted the deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 by the plaintiff, as well as the issuing of the five cheques. . . . . . . . . ."
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that taking of objection at the first instance and also before the issues were settled, though were the two essential conditions, but the third essential condition was whether there was a consequential failure of justice, which is not there in the present (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (9 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] case, as the respondents have not been able to prove a single line wherefrom the consequential failure of justice would have been reflected.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction was taken at the initial stage itself and the issues No. 3, 4 and 5 were, therefore, framed, and thus, the learned court below has rightly decided the objections, as the contract note itself implied the jurisdiction of the Mumbai courts only, and since the parties themselves have agreed to subject and restrict themselves to the jurisdiction of Mumbai courts only, then it was not for the learned court below to adjudicate the matter. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents also states that since the basic dispute was regarding trading of shares, which admittedly was done under the Bombay Stock Exchange, therefore, the parties were bound to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai territory only.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Ram Singh Vs. M/s.
Laxmi Enterprises (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1039/2003 decided on 09.07.2009), which reads as under:-
"In this revision petition filed under Section 115, C.P.C. the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 21.07.2003 passed upon the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. in the Civil Original Case No.244/03 pending before the trial Court, whereby, the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (10 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] Track) No.2, Bhilwara rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the non- petitioner filed suit against the petitioner for recovery of money amounting to Rs.2,37,908/- and the case of the non- petitioner plaintiff is that he is registered Sub-Broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India and pursuing business of sale and purchase of shares undertaken on delivery basis as well as forward transactions on deposit of margin-money. It is stated in the plaint that all the transactions are carried out under the rules and by-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange. The petitioner is having current running account and share transaction for sale and purchase of shares is carried out by the plaintiff- non-petitioner at the instance of the petitioner-defendant. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner for recovery of money based on balance due in the above-
mentioned account as a result of the transactions.
In the said suit, an application was filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff-non- petitioner is registered Sub- Broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and any client agreement as well as confirmation of transactions are specifically recorded, then, in that event, the civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the same. It is also submitted that under the rules and by-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between the Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration is provided and dispute is required to be sent for arbitration before the Arbitration Committee constituted by the (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (11 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] Bombay Stock Exchange. It is pointed out that the members of the Arbitration Committee include retired Judges of the High Court as well as City Civil Court, Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Advocates and experts of capital market and, accordingly, the disputes are sorted out by due process prescribed under the rules. Further, there is provision of appeal against the award passed as a result of arbitration proceedings.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., though specific averment was made by the petitioner in the application that in view of the clear provision of the rules and by-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange, in the event of dispute between broker, sub-broker and client, the matter is required to be referred for arbitration under the rules and by-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. ought to have been allowed; but, the learned trial Court did not even consider by-law 248 at the time of deciding the matter. Complete procedure is laid down in by-law 248 of the Bombay Stock Exchange.
I have heard arguments on behalf of both the parties. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the trial Court has committed error while not considering the provisions of by-law 248 of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai which ought to have been considered at the time of deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. The application has been dismissed only on the ground that the agreement which is to be executed (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (12 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] in between the sub- broker and client is not produced before the Court. In my opinion, at the time of deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C., when specific ground has been taken that the matter is to be decided as per rules and by-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange which is accepted even in the plaint in para 2 thereof, then, the matter was to be decided in consonance with provisions of by-law 248 of the Bombay Stock Exchange Bye-laws.
I have also perused the plaint. In para 2 of the plaint, it is specifically stated that all transactions are governed under the rules and by-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. When this fact is admitted by the plaintiff himself, then, it was the duty of the trial Court to take into consideration the by-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange. More specifically, by-law 248 of the By-laws of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai. Obviously, upon perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that at the time of deciding the application, by-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange were not taken into consideration, therefore, I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the trial Court for deciding the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. afresh.
This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted back to the trial Court. Learned trial Court shall decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. afresh while taking into consideration by-law 248 of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai whereby complete procedure is prescribed. Further, the trial Court shall consider the fact that no agreement has been filed either by the plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM)(13 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] Learned trial Court is directed to decide the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order."
14. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully examining the record of the case alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, finds that the main contention of the appellant was that he had certain amount of money to be recovered from the non-petitioner, who was a registered Sub-
Broker under the Bombay Stock Exchange and pursuing the business of sale and purchase of shares undertaken on delivery basis as well as forwarding of transactions on deposit of margin money. Thus, this Court finds that the facts arising out of the pleadings is that all the transactions were being carried out subject to the Rules and Bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange. The sale and purchase of the shares on behalf of the appellant was done by the respondents consequentially the suit was preferred by the appellant for recovery of the money.
15. It is an undisputed position that the respondent is a registered Sub-Broker under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and moreover, this Court has also seen the contract note between the parties, which subjected and restricted the parties to the jurisdiction of Courts in Mumbai territory only and the same was not objected to by the appellant.
16. This Court has also taken note of the fact that under the Rules and Bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange, for any dispute between the broker, sub broker and the clients, specific provision of arbitration is provided and the dispute is (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM) (14 of 14) [CMA-771/2009] required to be sent for arbitration before the arbitration committee constituted by the Bombay Stock Exchange.
17. As far as the objection being raised, it is clear that the objection was raised at the initial stage itself, and in any way, before framing of the issues. Thus, the objection has been raised well within time. Since the Rules and Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange shall be required to be considered and the Bye-
laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange clearly speak of Mumbai jurisdiction only, therefore, the impugned order is justified.
18. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference in the impugned order passed by the learned court below is called for, and hence, the present appeals are dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:54:55 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)