it was also held that the leave had been granted to the plaintiff on the basis of the averments made in para 13 of the plaint which clearly mentioned that the deposit was obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff at bombay.
200000 from 24th numberember 1983 on a further sum of rs.
the statement of the learned companynsel for the defendant in the aforesaid appeal proceedings was recorded to the effect that the only defence to the suit was to be on the point that the high companyrt of bombay had numberurisdiction to entertain the suit and the defendant would number companytest the plaintiffs claim on any other issue except the issue on the point of jurisdiction.
1000000.
1000000 with the defendant as well as the issuing of 5 cheques of rs.
1000000 was given to the defendant companypany through cheque number 933251 dated 5th july 1983 in the bank account of the defendant at bombay.
200000 each drawn on bank of baroda nariman point bombay dated 23rd 24th 25th 29th and 30th numberember 1983 respectively.
200000 from 29th numberember 1983 and on the last sum of rs.
200000 each drawn on a bombay bank.
it is also an admitted position that the leave to defend the suit was obtained by the defendant from the bombay high companyrt itself the learned division bench in our opinion was clearly wrong in holding that the suit was number based on the five post dated cheques and that the bombay high companyrt had numberjurisdiction to try the suit as the deposit receipt companytained endorsement of subject to anand jurisdiction.
according to the plaintiff the defendant failed to pay the amount of rs.
the defendant preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned single judge dated 11.1.1988.
the plaintiff submitted the aforesaid 5 cheques for payment but the same were dishonumbered for the reason insufficient funds.
the aforesaid deposit receipt contained an endorsement to the effect subject to anand jurisdiction.
200000 from 23rd numberember 1983 on a sum of rs.
the said deposit was to be for a period of 90 days.
the plaintiff had further stated that though the entire cause of action had arisen in bombay the plaintiff as an abundant caution was applying for approval under clause xii letters patent also since the registered office of the defendant was situated at vallabh vidya nagar 388121 within the state of gujarat .
200000 from 30th numberember 1983.
a prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint was also rejected.
on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties learned single judge of the high companyrt framed the following issues.
the monies were deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant at bombay in the defendants account in the bank of baroda nariman point branch bombay.
the learned single judge under issue number 3 held that as the plaintiff has number restricted the cause of action to the 5 post dated cheques the claim for interest can only arise from the dates on which those cheques become due and payable.
on an appeal filed by the defendant a division bench of the high companyrt by its order dated 24th october 1991 held that in the circumstances of the ease the leave granted under clause xii of the letters patent must be revoked and it must be held that this companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 380 of 1993.
on 11.7.1983 the defendant issued a deposit receipt and the said deposit receipt companytained an endorsement of subject to anand jurisdiction.
1000000 along with interest thereon 19 per annum on a sum of rs.
aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the division bench of the high companyrt the plaintiff has companye in appeal before this companyrt.
1000000 itself was paid by a cheque dated 5.7.1983 drawn on the canara bank and the said amount was deposited in the bank account of the defendant at the bank of baroda nariman point bombay.
200000 from 25th numberember 1983 and a sum of rs.
the date of maturity of the aforesaid amount was to expire on 3.10.1983.
the learned division bench allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
the case of the plaintiff was that it had deposited a sum of rs.
1000000 by way of cheque number 933251 dated 5th july 1983 drawn on the canara bank bombay in favour of the defendant and the said amount was deposited in the bank account of the defendant in the bank of baroda nariman point bombay.
1000000 along with interest was number paid on the due date and the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff on 19.10.1983 stating therein that in view of certain problems they were number in a position to repay the deposit amount on the due date and thereby requested the plaintiff to allow the defendant to keep the deposit till the end of numberember 1983 with interest at 19 per annum on the delayed payment as well.
1000000 and requested the plaintiff to companytinue the said deposit till the end of numberember 1983 and for that purpose handed over to the plaintiff 5 post dated cheques of rs.
the division bench in its order dated 19.1.1988 observed that the suit was to be tried as a companymercial cause only to the aspect of jurisdiction.
it may also be numbered that the leave to defend the suit by the learned single judge was given on the companydition of making a deposit of rs.
from the judgment and order dated 24.10.91 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 982/88 in summary suit number 566/86.
this cheque was also drawn in favour of the plaintiff payable in bombay.
the learned single judge as such passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in a sum of rs.
200000 each is admitted by the defendant.
raian karanjawala ms.
the cheques for repayment of the deposit were given by the defendant drawn on bank of baroda nariman point branch bombay.
finance companypany private limited hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a summary suit against the respondent sh.
the defendant had also issued a cheque dated 30th numberember 1993 for a sum of rs.
we have heard learned companynsel for the parties and have perused the record.
the defendant companypany had a branch office and also carried on business in bombay.
this appeal is directed against the judgment of the bombay high companyrt dated 24th october 1991.
it is also an admitted position that the leave to sue under clause xii of the letters patent was given by the bombay high companyrt.
m. karanjawala and ms.
1000000 within four weeks from 11.1.1988.
the defendant issued a deposit receipt for the aforesaid amount dated 11.7.1983.
1000000 as principal and interest ca 19 per annum with 90 days rests.
the plaintiff in these circumstances filed a summary suit against the defendant for rs.
the learned single judge negatived the companytention of the plaintiff that it had never agreed to the companydition of anand jurisdiction made on the deposit receipt.
the defendant also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to claim interest with 90 days rest.
22288.32 by way of interest on the said amount of rs.
deepa dixit for m s swarup john company for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kasliwal j. special leave granted.
the defendant also issued the five post dated cheques for rs.
vallabh glass works limited hereinafter referred to as the defendent in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the high companyrt.
harish n. salve berarwale k.j.
brief facts of the case are that the appellant r.s.d.v.
1000000 with interest to be charged 19 per annum with the defendant.
p. mullice for the respondent.
