* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R. P. 146/2012 & CM Applications 19532/2012
and 19533/2012
Date of Decision: 23.11.2012
M/S. AGROHA & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Adv..
Versus
M/S. KLJ POLLYALLOYS ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2012 whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner, who were defendants in the suit, was dismissed.
2. The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery under Order 37 CPC. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC opposing the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts stating that no cause of action arose at Delhi. It was their case that the cause of action arose at Nasik and that only the Courts at Nasik would have jurisdiction. In response, the plea C.R.P. 146/2012 Page 1 of 4 of the respondents was that the part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi inasmuch as the respondents were approached by the petitioners at Delhi office and they had also placed purchase order at Delhi. It was also their case that part payments were also made at Delhi in discharge of liabilities. It was further their case that there was a jurisdiction clause in the invoices which provide that all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. Based on all this, it was submitted that Delhi Courts had jurisdiction.
2. I have perused the impugned order. The learned ADJ has observed that a part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi inasmuch as part payments were made at Delhi and further that there was a jurisdiction clause in the invoices mentioning "all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and thus Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction. The learned ADJ placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Startech Enggcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bundelkhand University 147 (2008) DLT 276 wherein it was held as under:
C.R.P. 146/2012 Page 2 of 4
"place where payments were being made or required to be made is relevant to determine the territorial jurisdiction and the payment of amount for the work done is a part of cause of action."
3. The learned ADJ has recorded a finding of fact based on record that part payments in discharge of their liability against sale invoices were made by the petitioners at Delhi office, which are reflected in the bank statements of the respondents. He also observed that the payments which were received were credited in the accounts of respondent at Delhi and further that as per the jurisdiction clause all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was nowhere mentioned in the jurisdiction clause that only and exclusively Delhi Courts would have the jurisdiction. In other words his submission was that stipulation was not as regard to the exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and that being so, it was not that only Delhi Courts would have the jurisdiction. Though the words "only" and "exclusive" are not mentioned in the jurisdiction clause in the invoices, but reading it as a whole it would evidently mean to signify the sole jurisdiction of Delhi regarding all C.R.P. 146/2012 Page 3 of 4 disputes between the parties. Further, another clause in the invoices stipulates that the payment were to be made by way of account payee cheques/demand drafts at the registered office of the respondent at Delhi. From all this, it could not be said that Delhi Courts could not have the jurisdiction or that only Nasik Courts would have the jurisdiction. For all these reasons, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition is hereby dismissed in limini.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2012 awanish C.R.P. 146/2012 Page 4 of 4