Delhi High Court
M/S. Agroha & Anr. vs M/S. Klj Pollyalloys on 23 November, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R. P. 146/2012 & CM Applications 19532/2012
and 19533/2012
Date of Decision: 23.11.2012
M/S. AGROHA & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay K. Shandilya, Adv..
Versus
M/S. KLJ POLLYALLOYS ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated
04.09.2012 whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, filed
by the petitioner, who were defendants in the suit, was dismissed.
2. The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners for
recovery under Order 37 CPC. The petitioners herein filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC opposing the territorial
jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts stating that no cause of action arose at
Delhi. It was their case that the cause of action arose at Nasik and that
only the Courts at Nasik would have jurisdiction. In response, the plea
of the respondents was that the part of cause of action had arisen at
Delhi inasmuch as the respondents were approached by the petitioners
at Delhi office and they had also placed purchase order at Delhi. It was
also their case that part payments were also made at Delhi in discharge
of liabilities. It was further their case that there was a jurisdiction
clause in the invoices which provide that all disputes are subject to
Delhi jurisdiction. Based on all this, it was submitted that Delhi Courts
had jurisdiction.
2. I have perused the impugned order. The learned ADJ has
observed that a part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi inasmuch as
part payments were made at Delhi and further that there was a
jurisdiction clause in the invoices mentioning "all disputes are subject
to Delhi jurisdiction". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and thus Delhi
Courts had no jurisdiction. The learned ADJ placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Startech Enggcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Bundelkhand University 147 (2008) DLT 276 wherein it was held as
under:
"place where payments were being made or
required to be made is relevant to determine the
territorial jurisdiction and the payment of
amount for the work done is a part of cause of
action."
3. The learned ADJ has recorded a finding of fact based on record
that part payments in discharge of their liability against sale
invoices were made by the petitioners at Delhi office, which are
reflected in the bank statements of the respondents. He also observed
that the payments which were received were credited in the accounts of
respondent at Delhi and further that as per the jurisdiction clause all
disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. The submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner was that it was nowhere mentioned in the
jurisdiction clause that only and exclusively Delhi Courts would have
the jurisdiction. In other words his submission was that stipulation was
not as regard to the exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and that
being so, it was not that only Delhi Courts would have the jurisdiction.
Though the words "only" and "exclusive" are not mentioned in the
jurisdiction clause in the invoices, but reading it as a whole it would
evidently mean to signify the sole jurisdiction of Delhi regarding all
disputes between the parties. Further, another clause in the invoices
stipulates that the payment were to be made by way of account payee
cheques/demand drafts at the registered office of the respondent at
Delhi. From all this, it could not be said that Delhi Courts could not
have the jurisdiction or that only Nasik Courts would have the
jurisdiction. For all these reasons, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order. The petition is hereby dismissed in
limini.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2012
awanish
