Delhi High Court
M/S Fcl Technologies & Product Ltd vs M/S Rolwell Packaging Pvt. Ltd. on 15 February, 2012
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 26/2004
% 15th February, 2012
M/S FCL TECHNOLOGIES & PRODUCT LTD ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Yudhvir B. Arya, Advocate.
versus
M/S ROLWELL PACKAGING PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal (RFA) filed
under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the
impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 26.9.2003 by which the trial
Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, although the
respondent/defendant was ex-parte in the trial Court, and the
appellant/plaintiff succeeded in proving his case on merits. The suit was
dismissed on the ground that the Courts at Delhi had no territorial
jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject
suit for recovery of Rs.3,18,561.37/- against the respondent/defendant for
materials being manufacturing inks and adhesives which were supplied to
the respondent/defendant. The respondent/defendant contested the suit by
filing the written statement, however, in spite of opportunities being given,
no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent/defendant. Rather, on
22.8.2003 learned counsel for the defendant sought permission to withdraw
his vakalatnama which was allowed and the defendant was proceeded ex-
parte vide order dated 22.8.2003.
3. With respect to the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which was issue
No. 2, the trial Court has held that the Courts at Delhi had no territorial
jurisdiction by making the following observations :-
" In the present case, defendant is admittedly carrying on
his business at Kolkata which is not within the jurisdiction of this
Court. From the perusal of the plaint as well as the invoices
placed on record, it is revealed that plaintiff has supplied the
material to defendant at Kolkata from its divisional office situated
at NOIDA. There is nothing on record to show that orders for
supplying the goods were placed with the plaintiff at Delhi office.
As such, no cause of action has arisen at Delhi.
Plaintiff has tried to create jurisdiction of Court on the
basis of two counts:
i) that the registered office of plaintiff is situated in
Delhi.
ii) that there is stipulation in the invoice that all the
dispute will be subject to Delhi jurisdiction.
The word incorporate in invoices that all disputes shall be
subject to Delhi jurisdiction does not show anywhere that this
condition was ever accepted by the defendant. To my mind, both
these grounds are not sufficient to create the jurisdiction of this
Court. Either the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant is
residing or from where the goods were supplied has only the
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In these regard, I am
fortified by the judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court
delivered in the case of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd reported as 74(1998) Delhi Law
times 82.
Considering the facts & circumstance of the case, I am of
the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present
suit. Consequently, this issue is decided against the plaintiff and
in favour of the defendant."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the
evidence by way of affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff to
show that the Court at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction. It is argued that the
Courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because the orders were received
at Delhi and payment as per Ex.PW-15 was received in Delhi. The relevant
para of the evidence by way of affidavit reads as under:-
"10. I say, the orders were received and processed at Delhi and
payments as per exhibit PW-15 were received by the plaintiff at
Delhi. Further the parties had agreed that in case of any dispute
only Delhi Courts shall have jurisdiction."
5. A reference to the cross-examination shows that no question was put
with respect to the payment not having been made at Delhi. In fact,
the averments in the evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff ought to have been believed, inasmuch as, no evidence
was led on behalf of the respondent/defendant, who had remained ex-parte.
6. The trial Court has already held that the appellant/plaintiff had
otherwise proved its case on merits and which finding was correct because
the invoices with respect to the supply of materials along with the carbon
copy of the goods receipt were proved and exhibited as Ex.PW4 and
Ex.PW5. The letters/reminders sent by the appellant/plaintiff to the
respondent demanding the outstanding amount were proved and exhibited
as Ex.PW8 to Ex.PW14. As already stated above, no evidence was led on
behalf of the respondent/defendant.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal is accepted and the
impugned judgment and decree dated 26.9.2003 is set aside. The suit of
the appellant/plaintiff will stand decreed against the respondent/defendant
for an amount of Rs.2,24,339/- along with interest @ 12% per annum
simple from 1.1.2000 till the date of payment. Appellant will also be
entitled to costs of this appeal. Decree sheet be prepared. Trial Court
record be sent back.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
AK
