High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenging order dated 30.10.2019 whereby the plaint has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, on an application filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Brief Facts:
The plaint has been returned on the ground of alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction by the trial court. It has been held that the averments in the plaint that discussion and negotiation had taken place in the Delhi office were bald and vague averments without the same being substantiated by any material. In these circumstances, the plaint has been returned.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial court has erred in not appreciating that apart from the discussion that had taken place in the office at Delhi the arrangement between the parties was that work was undertaken by the appellant at Delhi which clearly showed that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and the Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction. It was submitted that since admittedly the articles were received in Delhi for processing and further fabrication and then sent back to Mumbai and the ground for non-payment by the respondent of the invoices of the appellant is that the job work undertaken by the appellant in Delhi was not up to the mark and the goods were rejected by the buyer. He submitted that part cause of action accordingly arose in Delhi and as such the Courts at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent admits that the nature of business was such that the articles were sent to Delhi for fabrication and finishing and then shipped to Mumbai. It was submitted that on merits, the appellant has no case and respondent had suffered substantial loss because of the deficient job work of the appellant.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that it is not in dispute that articles were sent by respondent to Delhi for fabrication and finishing and they were processed in Delhi and then sent back to Mumbai to the respondent. The dispute is with regard to the quality of the work done by the appellant on the articles at Delhi. Court stated that the cause of action for filing the subject suit has accrued in Delhi and in view thereof the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 holding that no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi is erroneous and is not sustainable. HC set aside the impugned order.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: M/S Doro Designs Pvt Ltd. v. M/S Radium Creation Ltd.
Case Details: FAO 48/2020
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
