Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd. vs . Amjed Khan on 27 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
II (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 402/2014
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan
27.2.2015
ORDER (Oral):
This suit for recovery of Rs.4,04,360/ 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 Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 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 3[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's Zonal Office in Delhi is at 2nd Floor, Videocon Towers, Block E1, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi and plaintiff carried on part of its business in Delhi from the said office; the repayment was also to be made at the ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 2 above address; all documents pertaining to the loan were executed by the defendant at the aforesaid address; the loan amount was sanctioned and disbursed in Delhi from the said address and hence the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
I have gone though the pleading 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 Amjed Khan is a resident of Flat No.1, Plot No.14, Geetanjali Appartment, Tigri Vilage, Delhi - 110062 with office address at 22, CSC DDA Market, Masjid Moth, Delhi 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 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 3 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 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. TOYOTA INNOVA bearing No. DL4CNE0465 and perusal of the application ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 4 form i.e. Annexure to Credit Facility Application Form dated 30.5.2013 placed on record by the plaintiff confirms the disbursement of the loan amount to the tune of Rs.4,99,550/. However, there is no mention as to whom the disbursement was made i.e. Dealer or Manufacturer, or Seller, or Existing Financer or Applicant or CoApplicant or DSA or DMA. The Deed of Hypothecation Schedule I shows the branch of bank as ICICI Bank Ltd. New Delhi and the Column no.2 (Details of the Borrower) shows that the Bank Account of the Borrower is at Masjid Moth, Delhi.
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) as mentioned in the application form placed on record by the plaintiff as State Bank of India, Masjid Moth Branch, Account No. 20005174291 which again is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. (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 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 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 5 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, 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 Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 6 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan CS No. 402/2014 27.2.2015 Present: Ms. Madhuri Katyal Advocate for the plaintiff. None for the defendant being not served.
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: Ms. Madhuri Katyal 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 Ltd. Vs. Amjed Khan, CS No. 402/14 Page No. 7