Karnataka High Court
M/S Cms Computers Ltd vs M/S Inflow Technologies Pvt Ltd on 6 December, 2022
-1-
CRP No. 320 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.320 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. CMS COMPUTERS LTD.
CMS LAKE ROAD CENTRE
NO.70, LAKE ROAD
KAYCEE INDUSTRIAL COMPOUND
BHANDUP (WEST),
MUMBAI - 400 078,
Digitally signed
REP. BY ITS SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
by V
MANJUSHA BAI
MR. VINAY GODACHI.
Location: High ...PETITIONER
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI SHIVAYOGI B. HALLUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. INFLOW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
"INFLOW HOUSE", NO.33 AND 34
INDIRA NAGAR 1ST STAGE
OFF 100 FEET ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 038
R/BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. RAMESHWAR SITARAM JAJU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH,SRI.R. KIRAN AND
SRI V.S. ARABATTI AND SMT. PRIYA NAGARA, ADVOCATES)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2022 VIDE
DOCUMENT NO.1, PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED LXXXV
-2-
CRP No. 320 of 2022
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU (COMMERCIAL COURT) IN COM.O.S. NO.268 OF
2020 WHEREBY THE LEARNED JUDGE ARBITRARILY
DISMISSED THE I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER/DEFENDANT
NO.1 UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC PRIMA FACIE
CONTRATY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SETTLED
PRINCIPLES IN LAW AND ALLOW THIS PETITION WITH COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in Com.O.S.No.268/2020 by the Court of LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-86), the defendant No.1 therein has preferred this petition.
2. The respondent herein filed Com.O.S.No.268/2020 for recovery of money from the petitioner herein. The case of the respondent is that it had supplied certain commodities to the petitioner herein and as there was delayed payment, the respondent has filed a suit to recover the interest on the same. The petitioner has opposed the claim of the respondent and has also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with -3- CRP No. 320 of 2022 Section 151 of CPC contending that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action and the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The trial Court has negatived the contention of the petitioner and has dismissed the said interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
3. The case of the petitioner is that as per the request of the petitioner, respondent has supplied the materials from Chennai to New Delhi and there was no transaction in Bangalore. It is further contended that the petitioner who is the defendant No.1, is registered in Mumbai. It is also contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner and respondent, in case of any dispute between them, the Courts in Mumbai alone has jurisdiction and that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the same. The attention of the Court is drawn towards the purchase order, which is filed along with the plaint. The purchase order is issued by the petitioner herein and in the said purchase order it is mentioned that the Courts in Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute between the parties. Further, -4- CRP No. 320 of 2022 from the purchase order as well as the tax invoice filed along with the plaint, shows that the plaintiff is situated at Chennai and defendant No.1 is situated at Mumbai. However, the respondent submits that the purchase order is only an offer made by the petitioner and that was not the accepted in toto by the respondent and the respondent when supplied the goods to the petitioner issued the tax invoices which are also filed along with the plaint and it is subsequent to the purchase order issued by the petitioner and it clearly mentions that any dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bangalore Courts. It is submitted that the same has been accepted by the petitioner and he has received the said goods and made the payments also in accordance with the said tax invoice issued by the respondent and what has been acted upon by the parties is as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the tax invoice and not the purchase order. For the said reason, the respondent prays that the Courts in Bangalore have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case and justifies the order passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of the petition. -5- CRP No. 320 of 2022
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has issued a purchase order requesting the respondent to supply certain commodities to it. The address in the said purchase order discloses that the petitioner is situated in Mumbai and respondent is situated at Chennai. The said purchase order also states that any dispute shall be subject to the Courts situated at Mumbai. However, reading of the plaint and the tax invoice produced along with the plaint discloses that the parties have not acted strictly in accordance with the purchase order and when the goods have been supplied, the tax invoice has been issued by the respondent herein, which alters some of the terms and conditions mentioned in the purchase order and one such condition is that the dispute being subject to the jurisdiction of Bangalore.
5. The petitioner has accepted the delivery of the goods subject to the terms and conditions of the tax invoice without any protest. Thus, the purchase order made by the petitioner has to be treated as an offer and the terms and conditions in the tax invoice are to be treated as a counter offer and an act of accepting the goods and making payments -6- CRP No. 320 of 2022 pursuant to the tax invoice by the petitioner has to be treated as an acceptance. Thus, the terms and conditions mentioned in the tax invoice governs the contract between the parties and one such condition is the dispute being subject to the jurisdiction of Bangalore, meaning Bangalore Courts have the jurisdiction to try the cases.
6. No doubt, the petitioner has the liberty to dispute the terms and conditions mentioned in the tax invoice as not forming part of the contract, but that will be a subject matter of trial. On the face of it, reading of the plaint as well as the documents produced along with it shows that the Bangalore Court has jurisdiction to try the case and when an interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be decided, only the pleadings in the plaint and the document produced along with it have to be considered.
7. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court and accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.
-7-CRP No. 320 of 2022
In view of dismissal of the main petition, interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE VMB