M/S Super Auto Pvt.Ltd. vs Protyush Chatterjee & Anr on 11 April, 2011
8. In reply to such submissions made by learned Counsel
for the appellant, Shri Naveen Dubey, learned Counsel for
the respondent No.1, has contended that jurisdiction is not
required to be taken from the agreement dated 29.04.1986
as by subsequent letter and correspondence, the appellant
has assigned the work to the respondent/plaintiff for
providing services in different matters. Though the
assignment was with respect to supply of the material,
obtaining information with respect to the tenders, supply of
material and realization of amount but it is contended that
the same was done on verbal instructions given on phone
and by the letters sent on different occasions. There were
no expressions given in the said letters that such acts were
to be done in continuity to the provisions of agreement,
which had come to an end and this fact was categorically
mentioned in the reply to the notice issued by the
respondent/plaintiff that such an agreement has already
come to an end and there was no continuity of the same as
there was no renewal of the agreement. It is contended
that if such was the situation, the bar of jurisdiction of any
other Court except the Court at Madras was not coming in
the way of the respondent/plaintiff for filing of the suit.
Since the payments were to be received by the respondent/
plaintiff at Jabalpur, the work was required to be performed
at Jabalpur, the jurisdiction for filing of the suit was
available at Jabalpur to the respondent/plaintiff and,
therefore, the suit was rightly filed. It is further vehemently
contended that in the notice Exhibit P-18 for the first time
there was a complete denial of the claim of the respondent
No.1 whereas in earlier correspondence duly placed on
record and exhibited in evidence, such claims were
admitted by the appellant, therefore, from the date of
denial, the suit was well within time filed before the Court.
This being so, the suit was rightly decreed and, therefore,
there was no force in the appeal and the same is liable to
be dismissed. Relying in the Full Bench decision of Punjab
9
and Haryana in case of Karnail Singh and others vs.
Kapur Singh and another, AIR 1980 Punjab &
Haryana 202, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has
contended that the suit was rightly decreed by the Court
and against the preliminary judgment and decree since no
appeal was preferred by paying the advalorem court fees on
the memo of appeal with respect to the claim granted in the
final decree, present appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Thus, it is contended that the appeal being devoid of any
substance, deserves dismissal.