M/s. Anubandh Financial Services Private Limited vs M/s. Amit Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Krishna Rao, J

The defendants have filed the present application being G.A. (COM) No. 4 of 2025 praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has not obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 as part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

The plaintiff has filed the suit praying for a decree of sum of Rs. 1,52,98,316/- along with interest.

Mr. Anuj Singh, Learned Advocate representing the defendants submits that as per the cause title in the plaint, the defendant no. 1 is having its registered office at 236B, A.J.C. Bose Road, 6th Floor, Kolkata – 700020 which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court wherefrom negotiations and communications took place between the plaintiff and the defendants. He submits that the post-dated cheques were dishonoured and the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff issued two demand notices on 12th November, 2020 and 25th November, 2020 upon the defendant no. 1 at its registered office which is the outside jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Singh submits that from the pleadings of the plaint, it reveals that the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis of the dishonoured of the post-dated cheques and demand notices which were served upon the defendant no. 1 at the outside jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that the Mediation Centre, High Court at Calcutta issued notices with regard to the mediation process initiated by the plaintiff upon the defendants at the address outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that on receipt of the notices from the Mediation Centre, the defendants from its registered office which is the outside jurisdiction of this Court requested for adjournment of the schedule of hearing before the Mediator.

Mr. Singh submits that from the pleadings and the documents relied by the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that a part of cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court but the plaintiff has filed the present suit without any leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Per contra, Mr. Surajit Nath Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that in the plaint in each and every paragraph, the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that all the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Mitra relied upon the correspondences exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendants wherein it reveals that in the letter-heads of the defendant no. 1, the address of the defendant no. 1 is mentioned as “Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016” and the said communications were sent to the plaintiff at the address 111, Park Street, Kolkata – 700016, as both the addresses are within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Mitra submits that in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that the defendant no. 1 being the private limited company having its registered office at 236B, A.J.C. Bose Road, 6th Floor, Kolkata – 700 020, outside the jurisdiction of this Court but manging, operating and conducting its business from its office at Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that it is the specific case of the plaintiff, that the defendants for the purpose of expansion of their business approached the plaintiff at their registered office which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Mitra submits that the loan amount paid to the defendant no. 1 vide cheque no. 250521 dated 5th October, 2015 of Karnataka Bank Limited, Overseas Branch, 1st Floor, 1, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Police Station – Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that the defendants have received the said cheques at their office situated at 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016, which is also within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. Mitra submits that in paragraph 20 of the plaint, the plaintiff has narrated all the facts between the plaintiff and the defendants but has not stated that the cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that though the registered office of the defendant no. 1 company is outside the jurisdiction of this Court but the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants were held within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such there is no requirement of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record. On 5th October, 2015, the defendant no. 2 in the letter-head of the defendant no. 1 company had sent a letter to the plaintiff wherein the address of the defendant no. 1 company was mentioned as Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 and in the said letter, the defendant no. 2 confirmed that an amount of Rs. 1 crore received from the plaintiff for 178 days at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 5th October, 2015 to 31st March, 2016. In the said letter, it is also mentioned that the defendant no. 2 had sent two cheques payable at Kolkata in favour of the plaintiff towards the repayment of the principal and interest amount. Likewise, several communications were made by the defendant no. 2 to the plaintiff from the address of “Siddha Park”. The plaintiff through its Learned Advocate had sent a legal notice to the defendants at the address “Siddha Park” and the defendants had sent reply to the plaintiff from the same address which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

The defendants through their Learned Advocate sent a notice to the plaintiff on 28th November, 2020 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the defendants are having their office at Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No. 5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016, P.S- Park Street and have given instructions to their Learned Advocate from the said office.

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 reads as follows :

“12. Original jurisdiction as to suits.- And we do further ordain, that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the Defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits, except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed One hundred rupees.”

Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 prescribed that “if the defendants at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits, except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta, in which the depth or damage or value of the suit property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees”.

In the present case though the registered office of the defendants is outside the jurisdiction of this Court but admittedly the defendants were having the office at Siddha Park, 99A, Park Street, Room No.5B, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016 and as per the documents and the pleadings relied by the plaintiff, it is found that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants were made within the jurisdiction of this Court and the defendants have not brought any evidence on record that any transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants were made outside the jurisdiction of this Court except the bald statement.

Considering the above, this Court finds that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that all the transactions made between the plaintiff and the defendants were held within the jurisdiction of this Court and thus, there is no such requirement for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865.

In view of the above, G.A. (Com) No. 4 of 2025 is dismissed.