Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M/S SOUTH EAST ASIA SHIPPING CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S NAV BHARAT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 443 JT 1996 (3) 656
1996 SCALE (3)190
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made on February
19, 1980 in FAO (OS) No.56/79. The respondents had filed a
suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for
perpetual injunction against the appellant from enforcing
bank guarantee dated July 16, 1977. The learned single Judge
held that no part of the cause of action had arisen within
the jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, the Court
lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal, the
Division Bench concluded that since the bank guarantee was
executed in Delhi and payments were to be made in Delhi, the
High Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and the
direction of the learned single Judge to return the plaint
for presentation to the proper Court was not correct in law.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The only controversy is whether the Delhi High Court
has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is an admitted
position that the contract was executed in Bombay. It is
also an admitted position that the performance of
obligations and liabilities under the contract was required
to be done in Bombay inasmuch as Cargo of livestock was to
be transported in the ship from Kandla to Damman or Jeddah.
It is also an admitted position that in furtherance of the
execution of the contract at Bombay, the respondents had
executed the bank guarantee at Delhi and had transmitted it
to Bombay for performance of the contract. The question,
therefore, is whether any part of the cause of action had
arisen in Delhi. The learned counsel for the respondents had
relied upon a judgment of this Court in ABC Laminart Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr. vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem [(1989) 2 SCC 163] to
contend that since part of the cause of action had arisen in
Delhi, the High Court on the original side has jurisdiction
to entertain the suit. We are unable to accept the
contention.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
It is settle law that cause of action consists of
bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury
for redress in a court of law. The cause of action means,
therefore, every fact, which if transferred, it would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his
right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a
bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to
them, gives the plaintiff a right to claim relief against
the defendant. It must include some act done by the
defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of
action would possibly accrue or would arise. In view of the
admitted position that contract was executed in Bombay,
i.e., within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay,
performance of the contract was also to be done within the
jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court; merely because bank
guarantee has executed at Delhi and transmitted for
performance in Bombay, it does not constitute a cause of
action to give rise to the respondent to lay the suit on the
original side of the Delhi High Court. The contention that
the Division Bench was right in its finding and that since
the bank guarantee was executed and liability was enforced
from the bank at Delhi, the Court got jurisdiction, cannot
be sustained.
We, therefore, hold that the learned single Judge was
right in his conclusion that no part of the cause of action
had arisen within the jurisdiction on the original side of
the High Court of Delhi and direct to return the plaint for
presentation to the proper court.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
Division Bench is set aside and that of learned single Judge
is restored. No costs.