Delhi High Court
Siddhidatri Agro Private Ltd. vs Shoua Shams Est. Importers And ... on 7 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 334/2013
% 7th March, 2014
SIDDHIDATRI AGRO PRIVATE LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivram and Mr. Niraj Jha,
Advocates.
VERSUS
SHOUA SHAMS EST. IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS ......
Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC impugning the
judgment of the court below dated 29.5.2013 which has returned the plaint
for filing in the court of competent jurisdiction. Para-25 of the plaint on the
basis of which jurisdiction at Delhi is invoked reads as under:-
"25. That the cause of action arose in Delhi since the
agreement dated 20.01.2010 clearly stipulates that any
disputes arising in between the parties to it will be
dealt/decided under the jurisdiction of New Delhi.
Further various correspondence via emails were sent by
the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. Further, the
FAO 334/2013 Page 1 of 3
legal notice was sent by the plaintiff through its counsel
from Delhi, hence the courts of Delhi have the
jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant suit. Further
plaintiff is having registered office in delhi. It is further
submitted that the payment was made from delhi.
Therefore this Hon'ble court has the jurisdiction to try
and adjudicate the suit."
2. There are therefore only two grounds on the basis of which courts at
Delhi are claimed to have jurisdiction. One is that parties have agreed to the
jurisdiction at Delhi courts and the second is that payment is sent from New
Delhi.
3. In law, so far as the contractual matters are concerned, those courts
will have jurisdiction where the cause of action arises in whole or in part i.e
where the contract is executed or where the contract has to be
performed/breached or where the payment under the contract is to be made.
This is in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of ABC
Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239.
The only other ground on the basis of which Delhi courts would have
jurisdiction would be if the defendant is carrying on business or working for
gain at New Delhi.
4. The place from where the payment is made is not the place where
whole or part of cause of action arises inasmuch as it is the place where
FAO 334/2013 Page 2 of 3
payment is made and not the place from where the payment is sent which
would give territorial jurisdiction to a court. Once courts at Delhi have no
territorial jurisdiction merely because there is a clause in the contract giving
the courts at Delhi territorial jurisdiction will not mean that the courts at
Delhi will exercise territorial jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above, since neither whole nor a part of the cause of
action accrued at Delhi and the defendant is also not working or carrying out
business at Delhi, courts at Delhi would have no territorial jurisdiction.
6. The appeal is therefore without any merit and is accordingly
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 07, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
