Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd. vs . Rachna Sachdeva & Anr. on 27 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
II (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 375/2014
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Rachna Sachdeva & Anr.
27.2.2015
ORDER:
This suit for recovery of Rs.8,32,391.90p has been filed by the plaintiff bank having its Corporate Office at Mumbai, registered office at Vadodra and Branch Office at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension. The short issue which has arisen before this Court at this preliminary stage is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit. This issue becomes relevant because Territorial Jurisdiction is the Courts power to bind the parties to the action and it is this law which determines the scope of the power of the Courts constituted under law.
In a suit filed for recovery of the loan amount, it is the provisions of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code which govern the jurisdiction of the court in whose territory such a suit can be instituted, and I quote 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 Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 1
(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. 1 [* * *] 2 [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.
It is evident from the above that in a suit filed by the plaintiff bank seeking recovery of the loan amount along with the interest, the same may be instituted either, (i) in a place where the defendant resides or carries on business, or (ii) in a place where the cause of action i.e. dispute or wrong has taken place.
In the present case the plaintiff has instituted the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the plaintiff has its office at Jhandewalan Extension in the jurisdiction of Police Station Paharganj. The loan was disbursed from the office of the plaintiff situated at Videocon Tower, Jhandewlan and repayable at this branch at Paharganj ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 2 and hence majority of the cause of action has taken place under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
I have gone though the pleadings in the plaint and the documents placed on record by the plaintiff on which they are placing its reliance and on the basis of which they are claiming that the cause of action has arisen at Delhi.
At the very Outset I may observe that admittedly the defendant is neither residing nor working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as the address mentioned on the memo of parties and on the Loan Application Form confirms that the defendant no.1 Rachna Sachdeva is a resident of 2030, Sector28, Faridabad, Haryana
- 121003 and the defendant no.2 Bhavnish Sachdeva is also a resident of the same address which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 20 Clauses
(a) and (b) CPC.
Secondly now coming to the issue with regard to the execution of the documents i.e. loan agreement/ hypothication deed etc., the plaintiff claims that the same were executed at Videocon Tower, Delhi which apparently is not the case. The perusal of the application forms and the documents show that they were only verified and screened at the branch office but not executed there. It is a matter of common knowledge that agents of the plaintiff banks are available in the office of the seller/ dealer of the automobiles where the loan application forms are filled up by ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 3 the borrower which applications are then sent to the branch office for purposes of verification and screening after which the amount is finally disbursed either to the Dealer or Manufacturer, or Seller, or Existing Financer or Applicant or CoApplicant or DSA or DMA (as mentioned in the Annexure to Credit Facility Application Form) as the case may be. The procedure relating to the verification and screening of the application form is an internal departmental process with which the borrower has no direct or even an indirect concern. The said procedure regarding screening can take place in any of the branch offices and is done at the end of the plaintiff as a part of its internal proceeding and hence it cannot be said that the screening of document at Jhandewalan Office forms a part of Cause of Action. The Disbursement of the amount which in the terms of a banking transaction is the release or payment of the amount/ fund, and is completed when it actually reaches the hands of the borrower or its authorized agent (i.e. Dealer or Manufacturer, or Seller, or Existing Financer or Applicant or CoApplicant or DSA or DMA) because prior to the same the borrower, at any point of time, has a right to rescind or revoke the request for loan. In the present case the loan in question was for the purposes of purchase of the vehicle i.e. MAHINDRA XUV 500/W8 bearing No. HR51AR1235 and the perusal of the application form i.e. Annexure to Credit Facility Application Form dated 3.3.2012 placed on record by the plaintiff confirms that the disbursement of the ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 4 loan amount to the tune of Rs.10,94,530/ has been made directly to the account of the dealer i.e. Bhasin Motors Pvt. Ltd., Near Mohan Cooperative Society, Mathura Road, Delhi in their bank account and there is no dispute as regards this disbursement directly made to the dealer (and not to the defendant) which dealer is not a party in the present suit.
Lastly the cause for filing the present case also directly relates to the default committed by the defendant in payment of the installments and dishonour of the cheques at the borrowers/ defendant's bank. The details of the borrower's bank from where the default has been committed (i.e. where the cheques were bounced) has not been provided by the plaintiff and appears to have been deliberately withheld by the plaintiff. However, as per the Schedule I to the Deed of Hypothication filed by the plaintiff and on which it is placing its reliance, the details of Bank's Branch/ Office Address has been specifically mentioned as 'ICICI Bank Ltd., Green Park, New Delhi' and the details of the Borrower has been mentioned as 'Rachna Sachdeva, 2030, Sector28, Faridabad, 121003' both of which again is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the Statement of Account on which the plaintiff is placing its reliance also confirms the Branch as that of Faridabad. (Note: The dishonour of cheques which give rise to cause of action is at this bank).
I may observe that the averments made in this plaint regarding this Court having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit does not ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 5 find any support or confirmation from the documents placed on record by the plaintiff and relied upon by it. A bare stereotypical routine averment in the plaint which is vague and non specific does not perse confer upon the court the Territorial Jurisdiction and it is necessary for the court to ascertain the correctness of these claims and in the present case upon a careful reading of the documents placed before this Court which include the Loan Agreement Form/ Credit Facility Application Form, Annexure to the Credit Facility Application Form, Deed of Hypothication, the said confirmation is not forthcoming.
In this background, I hereby hold that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff along with the original documents as per rules, for filing the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. Certificate of return be issued in accordance with law and file be consigned to Record Room thereafter.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 27.2.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ ROHINI ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 6 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Rachna Sachdeva & Anr. CS No. 375/2014 27.2.2015 Present: Sh. Sachin Kumar Garg Advocate for the plaintiff along with
Sh. Mohit Grover Authorized Representative of the plaintiff. None for the defendant.
Heard arguments on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of this court to try the present suit. Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 27.2.2015 4:00 PM Present: Sh. Sachin Garg Advocate for the plaintiff.
Vide my separate detail order dictated and announced in the open court, but not yet typed, I hold that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff along with the original documents as per rules, for filing the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. Certificate of return be issued in accordance with law and file be consigned to Record Room thereafter.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 27.2.2015 ICICI Bank Vs. Rachna Sachdeva, CS No. 375/14 Page No. 7