Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 650 (ORI)

S. Sampath v. Manoja Kumar Sahoo

2014-09-26

SANJU PANDA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the Order Dated 04.3.2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No. 9 of 2010 rejecting the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The facts leading to the present case are that Opp. Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed C.S. No. 9 of 2010 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar for declaration that the Plaintiff is continuing in his service as an Area Business Manager at Headquarter, Bhubaneswar with proper service conditions. In the plaint it was stated that the Plaintiff was appointed by the Defendants-Company as a Business Officer on 22.4.2004. Being satisfied with the service rendered by the Plaintiff, the Defendants-Company promoted him as Business Manager on 01.2.2006 & thereafter as Business Executive from 01.7.2006. While matter stood thus, all of a sudden on 07.7.2007 the Defendants threatened the Plaintiff to take demotion & the employer being in dominant position, the Plaintiff given his consent letter on 07.7.2001. However, the Plaintiff was transferred to Trivendrum on 10.7.2007 & on the next date i.e. 11.7.2007 the Defendants issued another letter informing that the Plaintiff is no more in service. In pursuance of the order of transfer, the Plaintiff joined at Trivendrum on 04.8.2007 & his joining report was accepted by Defendant No. 2 on the same day. When the Plaintiff was in-charge of Trivendrum Headquarter/Defendant No. 2 requested him to work independently without explaining about the independent work. On 06.8.2007 Defendant No. 5 called the Plaintiff to his Hotel 'Praveen Tourist Home' & directed the Plaintiff to go back to Odisha after resigning from service. The Plaintiff in the plaint has explained how he was being denied to discharge his duties & about the harassment caused by the Defendants. Finding no other way he has returned back to his previous Headquarter Bhubaneswar on 09.8.2007 & filed the suit. 1.1 The Plaintiff has specifically stated that he has received the Letter of Appointment with terms & conditions, which clearly stipulate that his Headquarter is at Bhubaneswar & the cause of action arose at Bhubaneswar. Hence, the suit is filed within the jurisdiction of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. 1.1 The Plaintiff has specifically stated that he has received the Letter of Appointment with terms & conditions, which clearly stipulate that his Headquarter is at Bhubaneswar & the cause of action arose at Bhubaneswar. Hence, the suit is filed within the jurisdiction of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. 1.2 The Defendants after receiving notice appeared in the suit & filed their written statement traversing the allegations made in the plaint & they have also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the terms & conditions stipulated in the Letter of Appointment. Clause-13 of the Letter of Appointment stipulates that: "You will be governed by the Head Office at Chennai & the Head Office will have the ultimate control on all your activities. In case of any dispute that may arise between you & the Company, the Court situated in the city of Chennai alone will have jurisdiction to try & entertain such matters." The Plaintiff filed his objection to the said application. 1.3 The Court below after hearing the parties by the impugned order rejected the said application with a finding that one Regional Office of Tirton Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is functioning at Bhubaneswar, in which the Plaintiff was appointed. The Plaintiff has received all communications, remuneration & the order of transfer at Bhubaneswar. Hence, the Court at Bhubaneswar has the territorial jurisdiction. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that in view, of the specific clause mentioned in the Letter of Appointment, the jurisdiction of the Court at Chennai is clear, therefore, the Court below should have allowed the application filed by the Defendants under Order 4, Rule 11 of C.P.C. & rejected the plaint. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 , AIR 2001 SC 416 , AIR 1999 MP 271 & (1983) 4 SCC 707 . 3. Learned Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 1 in support of the impugned order submitted that the Letter of Appointment was received by the Plaintiff at Bhubaneswar so also the confirmation letter in 2005. All the correspondences made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff were in the Bhubaneswar address, therefore, the suit at Bhubaneswar is maintainable. Hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 4. All the correspondences made by the Defendants to the Plaintiff were in the Bhubaneswar address, therefore, the suit at Bhubaneswar is maintainable. Hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 4. In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem reported in AIR 1989 SC 1239 the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court in matter of contract will depend on the situs of the contract & the cause of action arising through connecting factors. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, & of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed & the breach occurred. 4.1 In the case of Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & others reported in AIR 2001 SC 416 the Apex Court held that the expression 'cause of action' has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. Compendiously the expression means every fact which it would be necessary for the Plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the Judgment of the Court. Every fact which is necessary to be proved, as distinguished from very piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, comprises in 'cause of action'.' It has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. 4.2 In the case of Jabalpur Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. v. E.S.P.N. Software India Pvt. Ltd. & others reported in AIR 1999 MP 271 the Court held that whatever be the name & style of the agreement, in fact, it is an agreement for sale of movable property & not of immovable property. Section 20 of C.P.C. would be attracted for determining the jurisdiction of the Court. Section 20 of C.P.C. would be attracted for determining the jurisdiction of the Court. 4.3 In the case of Globe Transport Corporation v. Triveni Engineering Works & anr. reported in (1983) 4 SCC 707 the Apex Court held that it is not competent to the parties by agreement to invest a Court with jurisdiction which it does not otherwise possess but if there are more than one forums where a suit can be filed, it is open to the parties by agreement to select a particular forum & exclude the other forums in regard to claims which one party may have against the other under a contract. Since in the present case the Appellant was carrying on business in Jaipur, in view of Ss.19 & 20 of C.P.C. the Court in Jaipur would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Respondent. In that event Clause 17 of the Contract of Carriage conferring exclusive-jurisdiction on the Court in Jaipur city & excluding the jurisdiction of other Courts would be valid & effective. 5. Section 20(c) of C.P.C. stipulates that suit shall be instituted in a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. 6. Considering the rival submission of the parties & after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court situates at Bhubaneswar where the Plaintiff has received the Letter of Appointment, the order of transfer & the order of termination. Therefore, the cause of action for filing of the suit is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar. Law is well settled that the parties by agreement can elect the forum for suits in between them, but they cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court where no part of cause of action arises. In the present case in the Letter of Appointment issued by the employer at Clause-13 it is stated that in case of any dispute that may arise between the parties, the Court situated in the city of Chennai alone will have jurisdiction to try & entertain such matters. However, Defendants cannot debar the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhubaneswar, where a part of cause of action arose. 7. The expression 'cause of action' under Section 20(c) of C.P.C. regarding territorial jurisdiction has acquired a judicially settled meaning. However, Defendants cannot debar the jurisdiction of the Court at Bhubaneswar, where a part of cause of action arose. 7. The expression 'cause of action' under Section 20(c) of C.P.C. regarding territorial jurisdiction has acquired a judicially settled meaning. In the restricted sense cause of action means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In the wider sense it means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself. However, when the Court has to decide the question of jurisdiction pursuant to an ouster clause it is necessary to construe the ousting expression or clause properly. Often the stipulation is that the contract shall be deemed to have been made at a particular case, which will provide the connecting factor for jurisdiction to the Courts of that particular place in the matter of any dispute on or arising out of that contract. Hence, because of the contract it will not ipso facto take away the jurisdiction of other Courts when one of the parties i.e. the employer is in dominating position while issuing Letter of Appointment incorporated the clause regarding jurisdiction of the Court in case dispute arose. In the present case the poor employee, who has come to the Court of law to protect his right against the arbitrary & illegal action of the employer & also approached the Court which has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, the Court has to hear the dispute as cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court & the ouster clause in the Letter of Appointment will not be a bar to entertain the suit. The concept of administration of justice has gone a sea change in a democratic country. The peoples have right to get justice at the doorstep. In such a situation it has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. The concept of administration of justice has gone a sea change in a democratic country. The peoples have right to get justice at the doorstep. In such a situation it has to be left to be determined in each individual case as to where the cause of action arises. In view of the discussions made hereinabove & as in the present case the Plaintiff has discharged his duties as an employee of the Defendants Company & he has also got promotion & received the letter of confirmation at Bhubaneswar, the Court below has rightly held that the suit is maintainable, as the cause of action is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. As there is no error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order Dated 04.3.2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No. 9 of 2010 in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim Order Dated 06.5.2011 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 7206 of 2011 stands vacated.