- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
MR SHIUJI R v. FIRE LUXUR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Mr. Shiuji R, filed O.S. No. 6496/2020 seeking various employment-related monetary reliefs (including incentives, gratuity, PF, leave encashment, LTA, bonus, unpaid salary, incentive sums and damages for wrongful termination). The respondent is Fire Luxur Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Trial Court (VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru) by order dated 18.02.2025 returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate territorial court, holding that the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The appellant filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3089 of 2025 under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC challenging that order. The High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar) delivered an oral judgment on 04.08.2025 dismissing the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the City Civil Court, Bengaluru has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
- Whether Section 19 CPC (suits for compensation for wrongs to persons or movables) applies such that territorial jurisdiction lies in Bangalore.
- Whether the appellant's alleged work-from-home in Bangalore (during COVID-19 lockdown) confers territorial jurisdiction on the City Civil Court, Bengaluru.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The cause of action arose in Bangalore because the appellant worked from a home office in Bangalore (compulsorily during COVID-19 lockdown).
- The directors informed the appellant over phone that his employment was discontinued — this, according to the appellant, supports jurisdiction in Bangalore.
- The claim arises from employment-related wrongs (non-payment and wrongful termination) asserted against the defendant.
Respondent's Arguments
- By written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the respondent contended the City Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the company has its registered office at Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
- The cause of action arose in Malur Taluk; therefore, the plaint should be presented before the civil court having territorial jurisdiction there.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| W.P.No.30050/2024 dated 06.12.2024 | Observed that an application for return of plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. | The High Court directed the Trial Court to consider the issue; the Trial Court proceeded to consider Section 20 CPC and returned the plaint to be presented before the court having territorial jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court examined the Trial Court's territorial jurisdiction analysis under Sections 19 and 20 CPC. It noted the Trial Court's prima facie finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had an office or ran business from Bangalore (head or branch office). The Court emphasized the distinction between wrongs independent of contract (Section 19) and breaches arising from contract: Section 19 applies only where the wrong is independent of any contract. The appellant's claims were found to be contractual in nature ( wrongful termination and unpaid employment dues), making it doubtful that Section 19 applied. The Court further held that an employee's working from home, whether voluntary or compelled by COVID-19 restrictions, does not by itself alter territorial jurisdiction. The appellant produced no material proving he worked from a Bangalore home office for jurisdictional purposes or that the defendant maintained a Bangalore branch. Given these findings, the cause of action was held to have arisen in Malur Taluk, and the Trial Court's return of the plaint was upheld.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Direct effect: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's order returning the plaint to be presented before the civil court having territorial jurisdiction in Malur Taluk, Kolar District. No broader precedent was declared; the decision affirms the Trial Court's territorial-jurisdiction findings in the circumstances of this case.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2025:KHC:30038
MFA No. 3089 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3089 OF 2025
(CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR SHIUJI R
SON OF MR. K. RAJAPPAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 394,
8TH A CROSS,
2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
ABBIAHA REDDY LAYOUT,
KAGGADASPURA EXTENSION,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR P.O.,
BENGALURU-560 093. …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH S N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
FIRE LUXUR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
A FIRE CAPITAL JOINT VENTURE
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT THE EMPYREAN, NO. 239,
ANCHEMUSKUR VILLAGE,
LAKKUR HOBLI,
CHIKKATHIRUPATHI,
MALUR TALUK,
- 2 -
KOLAR-563 130,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GAUTAMADITYA S.,ADVOCATE
SMT. GEETHA M.S., ADV. FOR CVTR/RESPONDENT) THIS MFA FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(a) OF THE CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DT. 18.02.2025 PASSED . IN O.S.NO.6496/2020
ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-19, AS PER ANNEXURE-A,
ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the appeal questioning the order dated 18.02.2025 returning the plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC in O.S.No.6496/2020 passed by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein the plaint of the plaintiff is returned to
- 3 -
be presented before the appropriate territorial jurisdictional Court.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for relief of recovery of Rs.11,40,000/- towards incentives for the said period and Rs.2,42,492/- towards gratuity, Rs.10,800/- towards P F, Rs.3,17,744/- towards leave encashment, Rs.20,000/- towards Leave Travel Allowance, Rs.14,996 towards Bonus for financial year 2019-2020, Rs.1,65,492/- towards unpaid Salary, Rs.3,87,558 towards incentive payable for saving the compensation payable to customers, Rs.16,17,919/- towards incentive payable for sales made during the flash sales in July- September 2019 along with interest and Rs.9,92,952/- towards damages /compensation for wrongful termination of employment as described in the plaint.
3. The defendant has filed written statement in the said suit under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC stating that the City Civil Court does not have territorial
- 4 -
jurisdiction as the defendant Company has its registered Office at Malur Taluk. The Trial Court on considering the said application, allowed the application and returned the plaint to be presented before the Civil Court having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit where cause of action arose in the suit. The Trial Court has observed that the cause of action arose at Malur Taluk, Kolar District, and by elaborate order it has held that the City Civil Court, Bangalore, does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. But the Trial Court observed that the relief claimed by the appellant is regarding non payment of Salary, Gratuity, PF, Bonus, Incentives, etc. The Trial Court observed that though this Court dismissed W.P.No.30050/2024, but according to plaintiff the cause of action arose in Bangalore, as the Directors of the defendant informed the plaintiff over phone that his employment is discontinued. Hence the question
- 5 -
whether this amounts to wrong done to a person or movables. Therefore, answered that wrong done to a person necessarily means any wrongful act done to the body of a person or to his image or reputation or something intangible that concerns a human body.
4. This Court in W.P.No.30050/2024 dated 06.12.2024 has observed that an application for return of plaint can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, directed the Trial Court to consider the said issue and accordingly the Trial Court has considered the issue with reference to Section 20 of CPC and prima facie considered that the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant is having office and running business either at Head Office or Branch Office in Bangalore. Therefore, it is held that the City Civil Court does not have territorial jurisdiction.
- 6 -
5. It is much argued by both the sides with regard to Section 19 and Section 20(c) of CPC. Section 19 deals with the suit for compensation for wrongs to persons or movables. Section 20 of CPC deals with cause of action to suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant by stating that defendant is functioning its Office and running business from the place situated in Malur Taluk, Kolar District. In order to attract Section 19 of CPC the wrongs to persons or movables must be independent of contract between the parties. Here the claim of the plaintiff is based on the contract, as per the grievance of the plaintiff, he was illegally terminated without granting any monetary benefits and incentives etc. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, wrong construed is violation of employment contract. Therefore, the wrongs done independent of employment contract and the wrongs
- 7 -
committed due to breach of contract are two different aspects.
[[
6. In the present case, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendant has committed wrong, which is mainly based on the employment contract, but not commission of wrong independently. The illustrations to Section 19 clarifies the position that the wrongs must be independent. According to plaintiff wrongs are in violation of the employment contract, as to whether Section 19 attracts is doubtful one.
7. Further it is argued that plaintiff was made compulsorily to 'work from home' at Bangalore. Therefore, the plaintiff has executed his work from home office at Bangalore, not as per his convenience but it was compulsory due to the period of COVID 19 Lockdown. Therefore, since the plaintiff has worked from home office at Bangalore, it confers territorial
- 8 -
jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Bangalore. Just because the plaintiff has worked from home office, whether it is at the option of the employer or convenience of the plaintiff or defendant or whether he has done compulsorily, that does not change the territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the observation of the Trial Court giving detailed reasoning and by following the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, is correct in returning the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before Civil Court, having territorial jurisdiction.
8. Further the plaintiff has not produced any material to show that plaintiff has worked from home office at Bangalore and as to whether the defendant is having Branch Office at Bangalore. Therefore, the cause of action arose in Malur Taluk, Kolar District, and the wrong done as per the plaintiff is breach of employment contract. Therefore, the Trial Court is
- 9 -
correct in returning the plaint, and the same does not call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
NG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50
Alert