Delhi High Court
M/S Vansh Exports Inc. & Anr. vs M/S Kripal Import Exports Pvt. ... on 19 April, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAONo.290/2010
% April 19th, 2011
M/S VANSH EXPORTS INC. & ANR. ...... Appellants
Through: Dr. N.K.Khetrapal, Adv.
VERSUS
M/S KRIPAL IMPORT EXPORTS PVT. LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal is to the impugned order
dated 20.4.2010 whereby the trial court has held that the courts at Delhi had
no territorial jurisdiction, and consequently, the plaint was returned for
presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction at District Ghaziabad, UP.
2. I may note that the impugned order has been passed not after leading
of evidence, but it has been held that the courts have no territorial
jurisdiction on an application of the defendant no.1/respondent no.1 filed
under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
FAO 290/2010. Page 1 of 4
3. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned order ought to have
decided the case without evidence on an application under Order 7 Rules 10
and 11 CPC, it is necessary to refer to para 20 of the plaint and which reads
as under:-
"20. That the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to
undertake the present matter, as the order for delivery
of goods have been made at Delhi, the terms of the
contract were settled at Delhi, the goods have been
supplied from the office of the plaintiff at Delhi, the
goods were manufactured and procured at Delhi, the
consideration amount has been paid in the form of
cheques presented at Delhi at Canara Bank, Rajouri
Garden. The bills were issued from Delhi. The notice
seeking demand of the aforesaid amount has been made
at Delhi. The defendant is also working for gain at
Baljeet Nagar, N. Delhi. The criminal complaint
pertaining to the aforesaid matter is being tried at Delhi.
Hence Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
present matter." (Emphasis added)
4. The first line of the aforesaid paragraph 20 of the plaint shows that the
contract was said to have been arrived at Delhi because order was placed at
Delhi and the terms of contract were settled at Delhi. Leaving apart any
other averments in the aforesaid para 20 by which territorial jurisdiction of
the courts at Delhi was claimed, the very fact that the averment was that the
contract was entered into at Delhi means that part of cause of action had
accrued at Delhi and therefore by virtue of Section 20 (c) of CPC, the courts
at Delhi were averred to have territorial jurisdiction. This aspect was a
disputed question of fact which required trial and therefore could not be
disposed of as a preliminary issue and which has in fact been done by
FAO 290/2010. Page 2 of 4
deciding the application under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC. Before the
provision of Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC apply, it is necessary that the
averments in the plaint have to be accepted as corrected. Disputed
questions of fact cannot be decided on an application under Order 7 Rules 10
and 11 CPC. This is also made clear by Order 14 Rule 2 CPC as per which,
only questions of law, as opposed to questions of fact or mixed questions of
law and fact, can be decided as preliminary issues.
5. The trial court has given the finding that the courts at Delhi had no
territorial jurisdiction without referring to the first line in para 20 of the plaint
and by going on other facts with respect to the issuance of certain letters
and their alleged manipulation. The trial court has further passed the
impugned order by holding that the office of the defendant no.1 company is
at Ghaziabad, UP and in which, the defendant no.2 and 3 were Directors
whose addresses also situated at Ghaziabad UP. However, it is settled law
that different parts of causes of action can arise at different places and any
court in which a part of cause of action arises will also get territorial
jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted.The impugned order dated
20.4.2010 is set aside. The suit can now be taken up by the trial court and
disposed of in accordance with law. It is however clarified that the aspect as
to whether the courts at Delhi have territorial jurisdiction, is not being finally
decided by this order and this issue will be decided by the trial court after
FAO 290/2010. Page 3 of 4
evidence is led by the parties on all issues. The appeal is disposed of
accordingly with the aforesaid observations.
APRIL 19, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
