Delhi District Court
Icici Bank Ltd. vs . Vivek Chauhan on 27 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
II (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 237/2013
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Vivek Chauhan
27.2.2015
ORDER:
This suit for recovery of Rs.3,77,283.88p 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. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 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 agreement between the parties was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the payments were made within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial ICICI Bank Vs. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 Page No. 2 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 Vivek Chauhan is a resident of Flat No. 268, 3rd Floor, Pocket - 1, Sector23, Rohini, Delhi1100085 which does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court (Jurisdiction being in Rohini Courts) 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. 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 ICICI Bank Vs. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 Page No. 3 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 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 a Personal Loan and the perusal of the Credit Facility Application Form dated 9.1.2008 placed on record by the plaintiff confirms that the disbursement of the loan amount to the tune of Rs.3,91,011/ has been made to the account of the defendant i.e. Vivek Chauhan which as per the Credit Application Form, on which the plaintiff is placing its reliance is at ICICI Bank, Sector9, Rohini in account No. 048801500606 and there is no dispute as regards this disbursement.
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 which dishonour of cheque took place at the Branch of ICICI Bank at Rohini Sector9 (as mentioned in the Credit Facility Application Form which is ICICI Bank Account No. 048801500606, Sector9, Rohini) which again is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Here, I may note that it is this dishonour of cheques which has given rise to cause ICICI Bank Vs. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 Page No. 4 of action to the plaintiff at Rohini, Sector9 Branch and not at Videocon Towers.
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 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 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 Vs. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 Page No. 5 ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Vivek Chauhan CS No. 237/2013 27.2.2015 Present: Sh. Manish Dewan Advocate for the plaintiff. Sh. Amit Kumar Advocate for the defendant.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant has filed an application seeking dismissal of present suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Copy supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Heard arguments. Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 27.2.2015 4:00 PM Present: Sh. Manish Dewan Advocate for the plaintiff.
Sh. Amit Kumar Advocate for the defendant.
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. Vivek Chauhan, CS No. 237/13 Page No. 6