Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.56 seconds)Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs Prasad Trading Company on 6 August, 1991
8. Of course, arguments were advanced on the question of place of "residence" of the defendant and various decisions including Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company , New Moga Transport Co v. United India Insurance Co Ltd and Ors. and Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Skylink Chemicals were cited in this context. But, in my view it is not necessary to examine the issue of place of residence as the plea taken in the plaint is also that the cause of action, or at least a part of it, arose in Delhi. Two averments were made with regard to this in paragraph 17 of the plaint. The first being that the equipment was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. Even if this averment is taken at face value, it, in my view may not confer jurisdiction on this Court. However, the second statement that the payments were received in Delhi by the plaintiff stands on a different footing. Receipt of payments does constitute Page 0337 a part of cause of action. As per the plaint, the plaintiff, in the course of dealings with the defendant, used to receive payments at Delhi. This is controverter by the defendant in the written statement by stating that the payments were also made at NOIDA and not in Delhi. But, the written statement and defense of the defendant is not to be looked into. That would also be a matter of evidence. So, going by the plaint alone it is clear that the business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were conducted, not on the basis of any written contract, but on the basis of orders placed over the telephone. Hence, even if it assumed that Delhi was not the expressly contracted place of payment, Delhi would still be the presumed place of payment because of the general rule that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a debtor is bound to find the creditor for making the payment. In other words, the place of payment is the place where the creditor resides.
New Moga Transport Company,Through Its ... vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 23 April, 2004
8. Of course, arguments were advanced on the question of place of "residence" of the defendant and various decisions including Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company , New Moga Transport Co v. United India Insurance Co Ltd and Ors. and Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Skylink Chemicals were cited in this context. But, in my view it is not necessary to examine the issue of place of residence as the plea taken in the plaint is also that the cause of action, or at least a part of it, arose in Delhi. Two averments were made with regard to this in paragraph 17 of the plaint. The first being that the equipment was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. Even if this averment is taken at face value, it, in my view may not confer jurisdiction on this Court. However, the second statement that the payments were received in Delhi by the plaintiff stands on a different footing. Receipt of payments does constitute Page 0337 a part of cause of action. As per the plaint, the plaintiff, in the course of dealings with the defendant, used to receive payments at Delhi. This is controverter by the defendant in the written statement by stating that the payments were also made at NOIDA and not in Delhi. But, the written statement and defense of the defendant is not to be looked into. That would also be a matter of evidence. So, going by the plaint alone it is clear that the business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were conducted, not on the basis of any written contract, but on the basis of orders placed over the telephone. Hence, even if it assumed that Delhi was not the expressly contracted place of payment, Delhi would still be the presumed place of payment because of the general rule that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a debtor is bound to find the creditor for making the payment. In other words, the place of payment is the place where the creditor resides.
Bangali Mal vs Firm Ganga Ram Asharfi Lal on 17 November, 1922
In this context, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff's reliance on Bangali Mal v. (Firm) Ganga Ram Ashrafi Lal AIR 1923 All 465 (1), Soniram Jeetmull v. R.D. Tata and Company Ltd. and H.S. Shobasingh and Sons v. Saurashtra Iron Foundary and Steel Works (Pvt) Ltd. is quite appropriate.
Condor Power Products Pvt. vs Sandeep Rohtagi on 7 April, 2004
The learned single Judge then observed in para 7 of the decision in Condor Power Products (supra) that "since the object pertaining to territorial jurisdiction had been taken at the threshold, only the plaint should be looked at". The Court further observed as under:
Prem Nath vs Kaudoomal Rikhiram And Anr. on 1 November, 1957
9. The learned Counsel for the defendant then submitted, placing reliance on Meghraj v. M.R. and O. Mills (at para 6) and Prem Nath v. Kaudoomal Rikhiram , that place of payment does not necessarily mean the place where the money was payable. He submitted that in paragraph 17 of the plaint it is merely alleged that payments were received at Delhi. It did not specify that payments were also receivable at Delhi. It is the place where money is payable which gives jurisdiction and not the place where it is, in fact, paid.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Soniram Jeetmull vs Tata And Company Limited on 22 May, 1927
The learned Counsel for the defendant raised a plea that Soniram Jeetmull (supra) was not applicable in the present case as in that case the debts were not disputed whereas in the present case they are. But, this is not a distinguishing feature at this stage because the plaint alone is to be seen and not the defense of the defendant. Similar is the fate of the his submission that the said privy council decision would apply in a case where no place of payment is specified but, here the payments were dispatched at NOIDA. This again is the averment of the defendant.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Gupta vs M/S. Skylink Chemicals on 12 July, 2001
8. Of course, arguments were advanced on the question of place of "residence" of the defendant and various decisions including Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company , New Moga Transport Co v. United India Insurance Co Ltd and Ors. and Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Skylink Chemicals were cited in this context. But, in my view it is not necessary to examine the issue of place of residence as the plea taken in the plaint is also that the cause of action, or at least a part of it, arose in Delhi. Two averments were made with regard to this in paragraph 17 of the plaint. The first being that the equipment was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. Even if this averment is taken at face value, it, in my view may not confer jurisdiction on this Court. However, the second statement that the payments were received in Delhi by the plaintiff stands on a different footing. Receipt of payments does constitute Page 0337 a part of cause of action. As per the plaint, the plaintiff, in the course of dealings with the defendant, used to receive payments at Delhi. This is controverter by the defendant in the written statement by stating that the payments were also made at NOIDA and not in Delhi. But, the written statement and defense of the defendant is not to be looked into. That would also be a matter of evidence. So, going by the plaint alone it is clear that the business dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were conducted, not on the basis of any written contract, but on the basis of orders placed over the telephone. Hence, even if it assumed that Delhi was not the expressly contracted place of payment, Delhi would still be the presumed place of payment because of the general rule that, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a debtor is bound to find the creditor for making the payment. In other words, the place of payment is the place where the creditor resides.
H.S. Shobasingh And Sons vs Saurashtra Iron Foundary And Steel ... on 14 July, 1967
In this context, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff's reliance on Bangali Mal v. (Firm) Ganga Ram Ashrafi Lal AIR 1923 All 465 (1), Soniram Jeetmull v. R.D. Tata and Company Ltd. and H.S. Shobasingh and Sons v. Saurashtra Iron Foundary and Steel Works (Pvt) Ltd. is quite appropriate.