Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The case was argued with thoroughness and tenacity by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Mr. Salil Roy Chowdhury and Mrs. Pratima Banerjee appeared and argued for the plaintiff and Mr. B. N. Sen appeared for the defendant. All of them took part in the debate in court.

7. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that this court has jurisdiction firstly because part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and secondly because the defendant carries on business amongst other place at No. 1, India Exchange Place within the jurisdiction of this Court, Taking first ground first. It was contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that the contract in the instance case is concluded by acceptance of tender. The tender was sent from Calcutta and the communication of acceptance of the tender was made to the office at Calcutta. In compliance with the invitation for tender the initial security deposit was made at the Reserve Bank at Calcutta. Correspondence carried on with the plaintiff both before and after the contract was addressed to and from Calcutta the last notice of demand made by the plaintiff and/or its solicitor was from Calcutta, The argument is that the claim is founded on a contract and each one of the bundle of facts necessary to be proved for the formation of the contract and/or its breach constitutes a part of the cause of action. Mr. Roy Chaudhury referred to the line of cases in which it is held that if the contract is by correspondence, then part of cause of action as to the formation of the contract arises at the places from which any one of the correspondence was sent and/or received. He cited certain authorities which I do not think it necessary to consider. The instant contract is, however, in my judgment, not a contract by correspondence. The contract like the present is required to be in a formal document, in compliance with the requirement of the Constitution. In fact, a formal document was executed in the instance case in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution In that view of the matter, I am unable to hold that the instance contract was a contract by correspondence In the view that I have taken, the principle relied on by Mr Roy Chaudhury and the authorities cited in support have no application to the instant case. The formal contract in the instant case having been executed at Bilaspur, outside the jurisdiction of this court, jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked, on the ground that the contract was partly entered into at Calcutta, from where the lender was sent or the acceptance note was sent and /or letters were sent or received, even if they were so. As indicated, however, it is not admitted by Government that the tender was sent from Calcutta or acceptance note was sent to Calcutta. This is not the only contract subsisting between the parties. The plaintiff had other contracts and had an office at Bilaspur for executing those contracts. It is stated in the contract itself that the parties to the contract are the President of India, on the one part, and " Messrs. S. P. Consolidated Engineering Co. (P,) Ltd. near Co-operative. Bilaspur, on the other, " The point, therefore, is disputed and had I considered the point to be necessary for the adjudication of the dispute in the instant case, I would have directed the matter to be tried on evidence. As indicated before, in my view, in a case like the present in which the contract is evidenced by a formal document, required by the provisions of the Constitution to be executed in the manner laid down by the Constitution, these questions are irrelevant, haying regard to the fact that the execution of the instant agreement admittedly took place at Bilaspur, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The place from where the plaintiff submitted his tender or note of acceptance received prior to the execution of the formal document is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court.