Distinction between expression “carries on business” and expression “personally works for gain”

141.It must be noticed that Respondent No. 1 was initially
having 51 per cent shareholding of the Appellant No.1
company, which was subsequently increased to 56
per cent. This would be an indicator that the
Respondent No. 1 is actively carrying on business at
Daman. This Court considered the expression “carries
on business” as it occurs in Section 20 of the Civil
Procedure Code in the case of Dhodha House Vs.
S.K. Maingi39 and observed as follows:-
“46. The expression “carries on business” and the
expression “personally works for gain” connote two
different meanings. For the purpose of carrying on
39 (2006) 9 SCC 41

business only presence of a man at a place is not
necessary. Such business may be carried on at a
place through an agent or a manager or through a
servant. The owner may not even visit that place.
The phrase “carries on business” at a certain place
would, therefore, mean having an interest in a
business at that place, a voice in what is done, a
share in the gain or loss and some control thereover.
The expression is much wider than what the
expression in normal parlance connotes, because of
the ambit of a civil action within the meaning of
Section 9 of the Code…..”
142.The fact that Daman trial court has jurisdiction over
the matter is supported by the judgment of this Court
in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi (supra), which was
relied upon by Mr. Nariman. The following excerpt
makes it very clear:-
“16………..The proviso to Section 16, no doubt,
states that though the court cannot, in case of
immovable property situate beyond jurisdiction,
grant a relief in rem still it can entertain a suit where
relief sought can be obtained through the personal
obedience of the defendant…… The principle on
which the maxim was based was that the courts
could grant relief in suits respecting immovable
property situate abroad by enforcing their judgments
by process in personam i.e. by arrest of the
defendant or by attachment of his property.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2086 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10924 of 2013)
Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. …
Appellants
VERSUS
Enercon GMBH and another
Citation;2014 ALLSCR 2317
Read original judgment here;click here