K.L. Shroff vs State Of Haryana
1998 Latest Caselaw 343 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S.Gupta, J.

1. One of the issue framed on February 2, 1994 was to the following effect:

Whether the Court has no territorial jurisdiction?

Plaintiff was awarded the work of printing of lottery tickets for the period April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986 and April 1,1986 to March 31, 1987 by the defendants. The amount of Rs. 24,53,445/61 P. for recovery whereof suit has been filed represents the balance payment allegedly due to the plaintiffs from the defendants for execution of the said work and the interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount. Para 25 of the plaint which is relevant reads thus:

" That the whole cause of action arose in Delhi, where order printing had been received by the plaintiffs, where printing was undertaken and carried out, printing press of the plaintiffs is located at Milmil Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi. The delivery of the printed lottery tickets was also given at Delhi, part payments were made by the defendants to the plaintiffs at Delhi. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit."

2. Averments made in the preliminary objections and para No.25 of the written statement alone are material on the issue at hand. By way of preliminary objections it is pleaded that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the seat of the Government of Haryana being at Chandigarh this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In reply to aforesaid para 25 of the plaint it is alleged in para 25 of the written statement that jurisdiction for settlement of all disputes is at Chandigarh as per the tender conditions.

3. Submission advanced by Shri Jasbir Malik appearing for the defendants was that as per Tender Condition No.24 the suit should have been filed at Chandigarh and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. He did not press the pleas taken by way of preliminary objections in the written statement about the seat of Government of Haryana being at Chandigarh and non-accrual of part of cause of action within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. In support of the said submission strong reliance was placed on the decisions in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, Angile Insulations Vs. Devyashmore India Limited & Anr., and South East Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. Vs. Nav Bharat Enterprises Private Limited & Ors., . On the other hand, contention advanced by Mr. S.K.Khanna appearing for the plaintiffs was two fold. First, that the issue at hand is fully covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this the Court in F.A.O.(OS) No.26/94, M/s. Bachan Singh & Sons Vs. DS & D Haryana & Another, on May 23,1994. Second, that Tender Condition No.24 did not debar the filing of the present suit at Delhi where a part of the cause of action had indisputably arisen by reason of the facts disclosed in para 25 of the plaint. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in M/s. Instruments Incorporated Vs. Industrial Cables (India) Limited & Others, and R.S.D.V.Finance Co.Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Share Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., .

4. Admittedly, Ex. P1 is the copy of the tender conditions and relevant Condition No.24 reads thus:

"All disputes will be settled at Chandigarh."

5. Aforementioned F.A.O.(OS) No. 26/94 was filed by the petitioner against an order dated November 23,1993 passed a learned Single Judge directing the presentation of the petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act,at Chandigarh by accepting the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the respondent. In that case relevant Clause No. 13 read thus:

"All disputes will be settled within the jurisdiction of the headquarters of Director, Supplies and Disposals, Haryana."

While allowing the appeal the Division Bench held:

"In the present case it may be noted that Clause 13 does not purport to oust the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. In fact, it does not refer to any Court. It only says that disputes shall be settled within the jurisdiction of the Director for Supplies and Disposals (Haryana). This is stated as a matter of contract.

We are not able to construe Clause 13 as a clause ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi, Clause 13 merely directs that the parties will settle their disputes at a particular place. This could even be referable to settlement out of Court but, in any case, does not refer to any jurisdiction of the Court which must be clear and not vague."

6. It may be noticed that the language used in aforesaid Tender Condition No. 24 in Ex.P1 is identical to Clause No.13 and thus, the ratio in F.A.O. (OS) No.26/94 applies on all fours to the facts of this case. This much is in regard to the first submission referred to above advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs.

7. Para 9 on page 2098 of the report in R.S.D.V.Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) which is material runs as under:

"We may also consider the effect of the endorsement 'Subject to Anand jurisdiction' made on the deposit receipt issued by the defendant. In the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be disputed that the cause of action had arisen at Bombay as the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- itself was paid through a cheque of the Bank of Baroda at Nariman Point Bombay. The five post-dated cheques were also issued by the defendant being payable to the plaintiff at Bombay. The endorsement 'Subject to Anand Jurisdiction' has been made unilaterally by the defendant while issuing the deposit receipt. The endorsement 'Subject to Anand Jurisdiction' does not contain the ouster clause using the words like 'alone', 'only' 'exclusive' and the like. Thus the maxim expression unius est exclusio alterius cannot be applied under the facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be held that merely because the deposit receipt contained the endorsement 'Subject to Anand Jurisdiction' it excluded the jurisdiction of all the Courts who were otherwise competent to entertain the suit. The view taken by us finds support from a decision of this Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt.Ltd. Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, ."

8. A.B.C.Laminart Pvt.Ltd.'s case was one of the decisions on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants. Said decision was quoted with approval in the two decisions in Angile Insulations and South East Asia Shipping Company Ltd., relied on defendants' behalf. In Condition No.24 in Ex. P1 words like 'only' 'exclusive' and like are not used and in the absence thereof it cannot be held that the said condition excluded the jurisdiction of this Court who was otherwise competent to try the suit by reason of a part of cause of action having accrued within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Thus, the objection raised by the defendants in regard to territorial jurisdiction deserves to be rejected on both the said grounds.

For the foregoing discussion, issue No.1 is answered against the defendants and I.A. 2466/96 is dismissed.