Supreme Court of India

Patel Roadways Ltd v Prasad Trading Co

(1991) 4 SCC 27019911 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Goods booked with the carrier at Madras were damaged. The carrier had its principal office in Bombay and a branch office in Madras, and the consignment note said only Bombay courts would have jurisdiction.
Issue
Where a suit lies against a corporation under the Explanation to S.20 CPC, and whether the Bombay jurisdiction clause was valid.
Held
The Explanation to S.20 is disjunctive. Where the cause of action arises at a place where the corporation has a subordinate office, it is deemed to carry on business only there for that cause of action. Bombay courts had no jurisdiction, so the clause could not confer it.
Principle
Against a corporation, the suit lies at the subordinate office where the cause of action arose, not at the principal office.
Cite this

Facts

  • Goods booked with the carrier at Madras were damaged. The carrier had its principal office in Bombay and a branch office in Madras, and the consignment note said only Bombay courts would have jurisdiction.

Issue

  1. Where a suit lies against a corporation under the Explanation to S.20 CPC, and whether the Bombay jurisdiction clause was valid.

Held

  • The Explanation to S.20 is disjunctive. Where the cause of action arises at a place where the corporation has a subordinate office, it is deemed to carry on business only there for that cause of action. Bombay courts had no jurisdiction, so the clause could not confer it.

Cite this

Citation

Patel Roadways Ltd v Prasad Trading Co (1991) 4 SCC 270

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1695101/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.