Case: Prakash Roadlines (P.) Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co., Ltd. and Anr.. High Court of Madras (India)

JudgesV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Citation1983 ACJ 688, ILR 1983 (3) Mad 177, 1983 (96) LW 440, 1984 (1) MLJ 167
Judgement DateMarch 12, 1982
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.

  1. This case raises a question of jurisdiction under Section 20, Civil Procedure Code that is to say, in which Court the suit should be instituted; whether in a Court at Madurai or in the Court at Bangalore? The suit was actually instituted in the Sub-Court, Madurai. The contention of the defendant is that the one and only Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit is the appropriate Court in Bangalore. The question has to be decided in the light of certain facts.

  2. The Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, Madurai Unit which has its office at Madurai, entrusted with the defendant--Prakash Road-lines (Pte) Ltd. Bangalore, 360 bags of milk powder to be carried by the defendant-lorry and delivered over to the consignee at Calcutta. The defendant took delivery of the goods and carried them in its lorry. But, the goods were damaged in transit and became unfit for human consumption when the bags were delivered at Calcutta to the consignee. The Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, along with the Insurance Company, with whom the goods were insured, then filed the suit in the Sub-Court, Madurai for recovery of a sum of Rs, 1, 390,53.91 as damages from the defendant.

  3. The defendant opposed the suit on many grounds, one of which was that under an agreement, which is binding on the consignor, the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, any claim or matter arising under the consignment of goods entrusted with the defendant for transport can only be laid in the Courts in Bangalore city and in no other Court. This agreement was stated to be in the form of a printed condition in the goods consignment note which was given to the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation at the time when the goods were received by the defendant-company for transportation.

  4. The issue as to jurisdiction was tried by the Sub-Court as a preliminary issue. In the plaint it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant-company had its registered office in Bangalore City. However, in regard to the consignment Bangalore city did not enter into the discussion at all, because the delivery for the consignment to the defendant for carriage was at Madurai, the consignment was to be delivered over to the consignee at Calcutta, and the route did not cover Bangalore on the way. In terms of the language of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, no part of the cause of action accrued in Bangalore, whereas, a part of the cause of. action did accrue is Madurai, where the goods were entrusted to the defendant. This was the basis, on which the institution of the suit in the Sub-Court, Madurai, was sought to be sustained by the plaintiff. It was also urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the printed term in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT