Bombay High Court: Payee’s Bank Account Being In A Particular City Does Not Mean Bill Is Payable In That City

The Bombay High Court in the case PVR Ltd. v. M/S Proetus Ventures LLP and Ors observed and has stated that merely receiver’s bank account mentioned in the bill and being in the particular city does not amount to the bill being payable in that city.
The bench headed by Justice Arif S Doctor in the case observed and has decreed PVR’s commercial summary suit which is filed against one Proteus LLP and has directed the Proteus to pay its dues for screening ads at PVR’s multiplexes in Pune and Mumbai/
However, the court did not pay any liability of Shardul Bayas and Abhinay Deo, who being the partners of the defendant firm Proteus LLP.
In the present case, the Proteus had disputed the Bombay high Court jurisdiction in order to decide the suit filed on the ground that the money was payable at Delhi, and as per the terms of invoices all disputes were subject to the Delhi jurisdiction only.
The court observed that the PVR screened ads at its multiplexes in Mumbai and Pune as per purchase orders which are given by Proteus LLP between the month of December 2019 and February 2020. Therefore, as per the directions which are issued by by PVR, Proteus had to notify any discrepancy in the bills within 5 days of receipt, otherwise the said bill would be deemed to be accepted.
Further, the court observed that if there being no submission on the merits of the case, the court directed Proteus LLP to pay an amount of Rs. 1,13,06,080/- along with 12% interest from the date of filing of the suit till payment.
The counsel, Advocate Abhijeet A Desai along with Advocate Karan Gajra and Advocate Vijay Singh appeared for PVR.
The counsel, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, Advocate Samsher Garud, and Advocate Juhi Valia represented
Proteus LLP.