IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Navrang Erectors Pvt Ltd,
Registered Office: 42, West Marredpally Road,
Secunderabad, Telangana – 500026
India, ……………………………………………………………………………… Petitioner
VERSUS
Chaitanya Cranes Pvt Ltd,
Registered Office:308,
5th Main Road,Indiranagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka - 560038
India, ……………………………………………………………………………. Respondent

REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC, 1908 AGAINST

THE ORDER DATED _____ PASSED BY THE CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU
IN O.S.NO.___/2023

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Respondent has filed a suit against the Petitioner bearing O.S.No.___/2023

before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru for recovery of hire charges. The said suit is

not maintainable before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru as it lacks territorial

jurisdiction.

2. That the Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its

registered office at Secunderabad, Telangana. The Respondent is a company

incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at Bengaluru,

Karnataka.
3. That the Petitioner had issued a purchase order to the Respondent for hiring a crawler

mounted crane to be used at its project site in Chhattisgarh. The said purchase order

was accepted by the Respondent with certain modifications relating to working hours

and payment terms.

4. That the Clause 17 of the purchase order, which was accepted by the Respondent,

reads as follows:

5. "Whereas this agreement and contract is governed by and shall be construed in

accordance with laws of India and courts at Secunderabad, Telangana State will have

jurisdiction under this agreement, in case of any dispute arising therefrom."

6. That despite the specific jurisdiction clause, the Respondent has filed the suit before

the City Civil Court, Bengaluru which lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the

suit.

7. That the fact that payments were to be affected at Bengaluru and correspondence was

made through the Bengaluru office of the Respondent does not confer jurisdiction on

the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in view of the specific clause agreed upon by parties.

8. That the Respondent's contention that the words "subject to Bengaluru jurisdiction"

printed on their letterhead would override the agreed clause is untenable. Letterhead

text cannot supersede contractual terms expressly agreed upon between parties.

9. That the Petitioner had duly raised an objection regarding lack of territorial

jurisdiction before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru vide application dated ___.

However, the City Civil Court has erroneously rejected the said application and

refused to return the plaint vide order dated _____.

10. That the impugned order is patently erroneous, illegal and contrary to the settled

principles of law relating to territorial jurisdiction of courts. The City Civil Court has

failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

 11. That the Petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy against the impugned

order except to file the present revision petition. The impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

GROUNDS OF REVISION:

12. That there was an error on the part of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru as it had not

returned the plaint despite the explicit jurisdiction clause (Clause 17) in the agreement

favoring courts at Secunderabad, Telangana State.

13. Thus, it is humbly contended that the jurisdiction for any disputes arising from the

agreement lies only exclusively with the courts at Secunderabad as per the agreed

terms and conditions between the parties.

14. The jurisdiction was specifically agreed upon to be at Secunderabad, Telangana State

as per the contract despite the payment being made in Bangalore and thus the City

Civil Bangalore does not have any jurisdiction in the matter despite the transaction

taking place in the city

15. In the Respondent's letterhead the words “subject to jurisdiction in Bangalore” do not

override the explicit jurisdiction clause agreed upon in the contract, which should be

the guiding factor for determining jurisdiction.

 PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Allow the present revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated ____

passed by the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.___/2023;

b) Direct the City Civil Court, Bengaluru to return the plaint to the Respondent on the

ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction;

c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts

and circumstances of the case.

Place: Bangalore
Date: 08.03.2024
Petitioner
Through
Ms. LDC
Advocate for the Petitioner
 VERIFICATION

I, Vijay Nair, the authorized representative of Navrang Erectors Pvt Ltd, Secunderabad,

Telangana the deponent hereinabove does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -

1. I am aware of the facts and circumstances of the present petition and I am competent

to swear and file the present petition and affidavit.

2. I state that the accompanying petition has been drafted and filed by my counsel upon

my instruction and contents of the same are true and correct.

Verified at Secunderabad on this 9th day of March 2024 that the contents of my above said

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed

thereof.

Place: Secunderabad Deponent

Dated: 9th March 2024