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.