Jurisdiction and stay under relief undertakings law turn on Bombay cause of action, exclusive wording, and territorial reach

Jurisdiction was examined on the basis that the cause of action substantially arose in Bombay, since the deposit was made through a Bombay cheque, credited in the defendant's Bombay bank account, and the post-dated cheques were drawn on and payable at Bombay. The Anand jurisdiction endorsement was treated as non-exclusive because it did not use clear words conferring exclusive jurisdiction, while objection was also raised under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The second issue concerned whether Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could suspend or stay proceedings in Bombay and whether such suspension could extend to proceedings outside Gujarat.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding the Anand jurisdiction endorsement and the objection under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 could suspend or stay the suit in the Bombay Court and whether the State legislature had competence to extend such suspension to proceedings outside Gujarat.

Issue (i): Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit notwithstanding the Anand jurisdiction endorsement and the objection under Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The cause of action substantially arose in Bombay because the deposit was made through a Bombay cheque and credited in the defendant's Bombay bank account, and the post-dated cheques were also drawn on and payable at Bombay. The jurisdiction endorsement did not contain exclusive words such as

---