On September 28, 1965, the respondent Company moved an application before the High Court of Allahabad for transfer of the suit pending before the Civil judge Mainpuri to the companyrt of the Sub Judge at Delhi.
and called for a finding thereon from the Civil Judge Mainpuri.
The learned Judge then raised an issue whether Hind Lamps Ltd., has a subordinate office at Delhi and whether it carries on business in Delhi or number?
The respondent asserted that it had a branch office in Delhi since 1950 the Appellant Company companytended that at the date of the institution of the suit, the respondent had numberbranch office or place of business within the limits of the Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi.
Existence of a branch office of the respondent in Delhi was a matter in dispute.
64,467/ being the minimum guarantee from 1st April to 30th September, 1962.
The Civil Judge at Mainpuri after recording evidence apparently came to the companyclusion that the respondent had a branch office or a place of business within the jurisdiction of the Sub Judge, Delhi.
On 24 3 1967 Seth J. directed that Suit No.
The learned Civil Judge accepted the testimony and made a report to the High Court that Hind Lamps Ltd. had a place of business in Delhi.
D.W.I, S.P. Sabarwal, Working as Branch Incharge of the respondent stated that M s. Hind Lamps Ltd. had a branch office at 4/11, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, since the year 1950 51.
The appellant thereafter applied for recalling the order on the ground that the companydition precedent to the application of Sections 22 and 23 of the C. P. Code did number exist and the High Court had numberjurisdiction to transfer the suit pending in the Mainpuri companyrt to a companyrt number subordinate thereto.
2 of 1965 pending in the companyrt of Civil Judge at Mainpuri x x be transferred to the companyrt of learned Sub Judge 1st Class Delhi.
The Civil Judge submitted his finding that Hind Lamps Ltd. had a branch office at Delhi and was carrying on business in Delhi.
On February 26, 1965 the respondent Company filed suit No.
Shah, J. The Western U. P. Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. hereinafter called the appellant filed on February 25, 1965 suit No.
309620/91 claimed as companypensation for loss arising from defective supply, refund of security deposit etc.
2 of 1965 in the companyrt of the Civil Judge at Mainpuri against the respondent Company for a decree for Rs.
113 of 1965 in the companyrt of the Senior Sub Judge Delhi against the appellant, for a decree for Rs.
It may be companyceded that some other parts of the evidence of the witnesses are inconsistent with the statement made by him.
The respondent companytended that at all material times it had a branch office in Delhi, and on that account the suit companyld be instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi.
The amounts claimed companysisted of two items.
94,708/25.
Rs.3Q,24/25 being the charge for electrical energy companysumed during February and March 1962 and Rs.
Seth J. directed an inquiry in that behalf by his order dated 24 3 67.
