S.

CASE NAME PARAGRAPH CONTENT

NO.
1. Musaraf Hossain 32, 33, 36 32. Sending of cheques from Ernakulam or the
Khan Respondents having an office at that place did not
V. form an integral part of 'cause of action' for which
Bhageeratha the complaint petition was filed by the Appellant
Engg. Ltd. and and cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of
Ors. the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was taken by
(SUPREME the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri
COURT)
33. In this case, the averments made in the writ
petition filed by the Respondent herein even if given
face value and taken to be correct in their entirety
would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Kerala
High Court. The agreement was entered into within
the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The
project for which the supply of stone chips and
transportation was being carried out was also within
the State of West Bengal. Payments were obviously
required to be made within the jurisdiction of the
said court where either the contract had been entered
into or where payment was to be made.

36. For the purpose of proving the aforementioned

ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the
Act, the complainant-appellant was required to
prove the facts constituting the cause of action
therefore none of which arose within the jurisdiction
of the Kerala High Court. It is, apt to mentioned that
in Prem Chand Vijay Kumar (supra) this Court held
that cause of action within the meaning of Section
 142(b) of the Act can arise only once.
2. Bharat 96 96. In our opinion, the provision in Section 2(1)(e)
Aluminium has to be construed keeping in view the provisions
Company and in Section 20 which give recognition to party
Ors. autonomy. Accepting the narrow construction as
V. projected by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Kaiser would, in fact, render Section 20 nugatory. In our
Aluminium view, the legislature has intentionally given
Technical jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would
Service, Inc. and have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located
Ors. and the courts where the arbitration takes place.
(SUPREME
COURT)
3. A.B.C. Laminart 12 12. A cause of action means every fact, which, if
Pvt. Ltd. and traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to
Ors. prove in order to support his right to a judgment of
vs. the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts
A.P. Agencies, which taken with the law applicable to them gives
Salem the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It
(SUPREME must include some act done by the defendant since
COURT) in the absence of such an act no cause of action can
possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but includes all the
material facts on which it is founded It does not
comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but
every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to
enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if
not proved would give the defendant a right to
immediate judgment must be part of the cause of
action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence
which may be set up by the defendant nor does it
depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by
the plaintiff.