Bombay High Court
THE BARODA RAYON CORPORATIONversusTHERMAX LTD
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that the City Civil Court possessed territorial jurisdiction and the petition to set aside the order dismissing the notice of motion was dismissed.
Summary
The Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a City Civil Court order that dismissed its notice of motion seeking dismissal of a commercial suit on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The suit, instituted in 1999, concerned recovery of Rs. 1,70,81,436 from Thermax Ltd. for delivery of heat‑fluid heaters, with the purchase order placed in Pune, delivery in Surat and the defendant's registered office in Gujarat. The defendant argued that the Mumbai court lacked jurisdiction, raising the objection after more than 25 years and after filing a counter‑claim. The High Court held that an objection to territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage, that the belated notice was a tactic to delay, and that the plaintiff’s pleadings showed business activities in Mumbai, establishing jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and no further costs were imposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the City Civil Court in Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the commercial suit.
- Whether an objection to jurisdiction can be raised after a prolonged delay of 25 years.
- Whether the filing of a counter‑claim defeats the defendant's claim of lack of jurisdiction.
- Whether a suit can be dismissed at the threshold for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Subjects
- territorial jurisdiction
- civil procedure
- notice of motion
- delay
- counter‑claim
- commercial suit
- jurisdictional objection
Judgment
8-WP-12650-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12650 OF 2025
The Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited ..Petitioner
Versus
Thermax Limited …Respondent
Mr. N.R. Pradhan, for the Petitioner.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 18th AUGUST 2026
ORDER:
1. Heard Mr. N. R. Pradhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 28th July 2025,
whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court, dismissed the Notice of
Motion taken out by the Petitioner-Defendant in Commercial Suit No.
94 of 2024 (Old High Court Commercial Summary Suit No. 8 of 1999)
for dismissing the Suit for want of jurisdiction.
SAINATH 3. The Respondent-Plaintiff had sold and delivered to the Defendant
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed two 2.8 mkcal/hr heat capacity, TP-28 model Thermic fluid heater and
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.24
20:42:28 +0530
the various parts of the said heaters pursuant to the purchase orders
placed by the Defendant, and the invoices and the bills raised by the
Plaintiff. Towards the said liability, an amount of Rs. 1,70,81,436/-
remained outstanding. The Plaintiff thus instituted the suit for recovery
ARS 1/3
8-WP-12650-2025.DOC
of the outstanding amount alongwith interest at the rate of 20% per
annum, in the year 1999.
4. In the year 2025, the Defendant took out the Notice of Motion
seeking the dismissal of the suit inter alia on the ground that no part of
cause of action had arisen within the local limits of the territorial
jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Mumbai as the purchase order was
placed at Pune and the equipments were delivered at Fatehnagar, Surat,
Gujarat and that the registered office of the Defendant was also located
at Fatehnagar, Gujarat.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, City Civil Court was
persuaded to dismiss the Notice of Motion observing inter alia that the
objection as to the territorial jurisdiction was taken at a belated stage
and that too after filing a counter-claim. The Notice of Motion was
taken out to further delay the disposal of the Suit which awaited
adjudication more than 25 years.
6. Mr. Pradhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, made an
endeavour to demonstrate that the learned Judge, City Civil Court has
not kept in view the correct principles in determining the aspect of the
territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court to entertain, try and decide
the suit.
7. The submissions on behalf of the Petitioner deserve to be noted to
be repelled, for the reasons more than one. Firstly, under no
ARS 2/3
8-WP-12650-2025.DOC
circumstances, a suit can be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction
at the threshold. Secondly, the filing of the counter-claim by the
Defendant runs counter to the contention of the Defendant that the City
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit.
Thirdly, it is well-recognized, an objection as to the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court is required to be taken at the earliest possible
opportunity. The Notice of Motion was taken out by the Defendant after
more than 25 years of the institution of the suit when it was posted for
the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses. The delay is simply
inordinate. Lastly, at any rate, in paragraph 17 of the Plaint, the Plaintiff
has made averments to the effect that the bills were raised on the
Defendant at Mumbai, and the Defendant was carrying on business for
gain at Mumbai.
8. Therefore, at this length in time, this Court does not find any
justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.
9. The Petition thus stands dismissed.
10. Since the learned Judge, City Civil Court has imposed a
substantial costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, this Court refrains from imposing
further costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 3/3
Checking your session…