Ureka Engineers vs Govt. Of Haryana & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 5211 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) No. 933/2014 & CM No. 17146-47/2014

%                                                   16th October , 2014

UREKA ENGINEERS                                           ......Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate.


                           VERSUS

GOVT. OF HARYANA & ANR.                                   ...... Respondents
                 Through:

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             The impugned order disposes of two applications filed by the

respondents/defendants/Govt. of Haryana.       One is the application under

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and which has been

allowed by the impugned judgment dated 2.8.2014. The second application

is the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC questioning the territorial

jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi and which application was dismissed as

infructuous in view of allowing of the application under Section 8 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act.


CMM 933/2014                                                               Page 1 of 4
 2.             Though, the provision of Section 8 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act will not apply as rightly argued by the counsel for the

petitioner/plaintiff because what is challenged is not any action of the

respondent/defendant under the contract which contained the arbitration

clause, but an order dated 19.7.2013 black listing the petitioner/plaintiff with

respect to future tenders/contracts         to be issued/awarded by the

respondents/defendants.


3.             I have put it to counsel for the petitioner that even if the order

allowing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act has to be allowed, the courts at Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction

in view of para 33 and prayer clauses contained in para 34 as the plaint, and

which read as under:-


      "33. That this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and
           entertain the present suit at Delhi as the plaintiff office for all
           purpose is at Delhi and all the correspondence was made by the
           plaintiff at the registered office at New Delhi and also received
           all the tenders/letter at Delhi.



      34.      That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and
               jurisdiction is Rs.10,25,000/- and for which appropriate court
               fee has been affixed.



CMM 933/2014                                                                  Page 2 of 4
                Damages etc.                    Rs.10,00,000/-

               Legal notice fees               Rs.    10,000/-

               Off expenses etc. postage

               Print, legal consultation fee   Rs.    15,000/-

                                               -------------------



                                               Rs.10,25,000/-

                                               ------------------

                                   PRAYER



               a)    That in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is
                     therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree of damages,
                     loss of reputation, goodwill, self earning, expenses of the
                     establishment etc. for Rs.10,25,000/- kindly be passed in
                     favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
                     directing the defendant to make the payment. The
                     plaintiff undertake to pay the court fee as and when the
                     Hon'ble Court award the damages along with cost of the
                     suit.



               b)    passed an order for setting aside the alleged order
                     recommendations dated 19.7.2013 passed by the alleged
                     committee.



               c)    grant stay on the operation to the recommendations of the
                     Chief Engineers committee.
CMM 933/2014                                                                 Page 3 of 4
                d)    any relief the court may consider appropriate."


4.             Learned counsel for the petitioner only argues that the plaint

cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the plaint should be

returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for being presented to the court of

competent territorial jurisdiction. I agree. Once a suit is filed in court not

having territorial jurisdiction then what applies is the provision of Order 7

Rule 10 CPC and not Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, this petition is

disposed of by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by

treating the same under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, and the plaint of the petitioner

will stand returned for being filed before the competent court having

territorial jurisdiction in Haryana/Chandigarh. Trial court will now give a

specific date for return of the plaint to the petitioner/plaintiff as per Order 7

Rule 10A CPC.


5.             Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.

No costs.



OCTOBER 16, 2014                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib