M/S Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Uoi & Ors
2010 Latest Caselaw 714 Del

                                                     UNREPORTABLE

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                          FAO No.201/2007


                              Date of Decision: February 08, 2010


       M/S SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.            ..... Appellant
                     Through Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocate with
                     Mr. Sumit Khosla, Advocate

                              Versus


       UOI & ORS                                  ..... Respondents
                        Through Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate with
                        Mr. Sumit Batra, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari and
                        Mr. R.C.Bhandana, Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the `Digest'? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

This appeal has been preferred against an order of a trial Judge

dated February 26, 2007. By virtue of the impugned order, the

learned Judge has returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presenting

the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

It is revealed from the impugned order that the plaintiff who is

appellant before me had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,55,083/-

against the respondents, namely, Union of India through its Secretary,

Department of Revenue, New Delhi; Central Board of Excise and

Customs through its Chairman at New Delhi and the Commissioner of

Customs, Jawahar Customs House, Maharashtra. It was alleged in the

plaint that respondent No.3 did not allow release/clearance the bill of

entry dated February 26, 2001 of the goods/drugs of the appellant.

The goods were released by the said respondent after a long lapse of

time and only upon the appellant furnishing an indemnity bond dated

July 17, 2001. Hence, the suit as aforesaid was filed on account of

alleged illegal detention of goods by respondent No.3.

The learned Additional District Judge has returned the plaint to

the appellant, on the ground that the illegal act of detention of goods

has been, allegedly, committed by respondent No.3 who is situate in

Maharashtra and, therefore, cause of action, if at all, has arisen within

the jurisdiction of the Courts at Maharashtra.

It is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellant

that some circulars were issued by respondents No.1 & 2 and because

of those circulars, Courts at Delhi too have the jurisdiction to deal

with the suit. I do not agree. The basis for filing the suit is the

alleged illegal detention of goods by respondent No.3 and not

circulars issued by respondents No.1 & 2. There is no merit in the

appeal. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

FEBRUARY 08, 2010 PC/ka