TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him, after complying with the legal formalities he was transporting the timber in a lorry to the site of house construction at Maradu in Kanayannur Taluk on April 26, 1992. It was intercepted by respondent No. 2 at Karukutty sales tax check-post alleging that the appellant had no valid documents. Respondent No. 2 refused permission to the appellant to proceed further with the timber to its destination. The appellant was allowed to proceed only on the next day on his paying Rs. 9,454. On August 26, 1992 the Sales Tax Officer at Ernakulam ordered refund of the said amount. Alleging that the said mala fide act of respondent No. 2 caused loss to him including travelling expenses to go to different places including Ernakulam and additional payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant contended that under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") it is sufficient that a part of cause of action arose within the local limits of the court before which the proceeding is initiated. According to the learned counsel the order of refund passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam, formed part of cause of action for the suit which is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction for the Sub-court, Ernakulam, to try the suit. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents maintained the stand that since the cause of action arose at Karukutty which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-court, Ernakulam the suit was not maintainable in that court. The learned Sub-judge has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nent edition, volume 46, page No. 483 the word "wrong" is given the following meaning: "'Wrong' means any deprivation of right, breach of contract, or injury done by one person to another." (O'Connor v. Dils 26 S.E. 354, 355). "'Wrong' in law means a violation of the legal rights of another; an invasion of right to the damage of the parties who suffer it, especially a tort." (Donelen v. Denser 134 S. W. 2d. 132, 133). A "wrong" involves the violation of one's right. "Wrong done" includes the effect of the act and the resultant damage. If the act does not lead to any consequence or damage, such act may not be actionable. Therefore the phrase "wrong done" occurring in section 19 of the Code should be understoo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f respondent No. 2 was felt at Ernakulam as well. In such a situation in my opinion section 19 of the Code would apply and the court within whose jurisdiction such effect was felt also has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 21 of the Code mandates that every objection as to the place of suing has to be taken (in the court of first instance) at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement. In this case the respondents raised a contention that the court has no territorial jurisdiction. The issue framed is "whether the suit is maintainable". Assuming that the issue framed is as to the alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction the court should have decided the issue before t....