M/S Rathi Steels Ltd. vs M/S Senbo Engineering Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5005 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         C.R.P.No. 147/2014
%                                                     1st October , 2014

M/S RATHI STEELS LTD.                                      ......Petitioner
                   Through:              Mr. Hari Shankar and Mr. Manu
                                         Gupta, Advocates.


                          VERSUS

M/S SENBO ENGINEERING LTD.                                   ...... Respondent
                  Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No.16599/2014 (Exemption)

      Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.


      CM stands disposed of.


CM No.16675/2014 (delay)

      For the reasons stated in the application delay in refiling of 15 days is

condoned. CM stands disposed of.




CRP 147/2014                                                                     Page 1 of 3
 C.R.P.No. 147/2014

1.             Challenge by means of this petition under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned order of the trial

court dated 9.5.2014 by which the trial court has held that the courts at Delhi

have no territorial jurisdiction in view of the agreed clause 20 of the

purchase order placed upon the petitioner/plaintiff, and which clause 20

provides that territorial jurisdiction will be of the courts at Kolkata.


2.             The subject suit under Order XXXVII CPC was filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff placing reliance upon the invoices of supply. Originally,

the suit was decreed ex parte, but the ex parte decree was set aside on the

ground that respondent/defendant was not served in the suit. After

appearing, leave to defend was granted and the respondent/defendant was

directed to file the written statement. In the written statement an objection

was raised as to the lack of territorial jurisdiction in the Delhi courts by

placing reliance upon clause 20 of the purchase order.


3.             There is no dispute that the purchase order which contains the

clause 20 was placed upon the petitioner/plaintiff prior in time to the invoices

which have been drawn by the petitioner/plaintiff showing the supply of the

goods/steel bars to the respondent/defendant. Once contract is concluded
CRP 147/2014                                                                 Page 2 of 3
 in terms of the purchase order, and which purchase order contains a specific

clause giving territorial jurisdiction to the courts at Kolkatta, in my opinion,

the court below has rightly relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Swastik Gases P. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

(2013) 9 SCC 32 to hold that such a clause 20 will give exclusive

jurisdiction, to the Kolkata courts and it is not required that for conferring

exclusive jurisdiction, the words 'only' or 'exclusively' etc should be used

in the territorial jurisdiction clause.


4.             At the end, I would like to note that the trial court has though

decided the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, really the

application is under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and the trial court has therefore

returned the plaint for being presented to the competent court at Kolkata.


5.             Dismissed.




OCTOBER 01, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib