Delhi High Court
The State Trading Corporation Of ... vs M/S Rajat Pharmachem Ltd & Ors on 20 March, 2015
$~2.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1969/2009
THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. D.Ray Choudhri, Senior Advocate
with Mr. R.N. Yadav, Advocate and AR of the
plaintiff in person.
versus
M/S RAJAT PHARMACHEM LTD & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Jay Savla, Advocate with
Ms. Amrita Mishra, Ms. Ankita Jain, Mr. Rajpal
Singh, Mr. Abhinav Sharma and Ms. Shilpi
Choudhary, Advocates for D-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 20.03.2015
I.A. 4437/2014 (by the plaintiff for condonation of delay in
filing the affidavit of admission and denial) and I.A. 4438/2014
(by the plaintiff for clarification/correction in the order dated
21.10.2013)
1. Admission and denial of documents has been concluded.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff states that no further orders are
required to be passed on these applications.
3. The applications are disposed of.
I.A. 9159/2012 (by D-3 u/O VII R 11 r/w S 151 CPC)
1. The present application has been filed by the defendant No.3
praying inter alia that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is liable to be
rejected on the ground that this Court does not have the territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the same.
2. Mr. Choudhri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff
hands over a copy of an order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the
Bombay High Court in Company Petition No.419/2013 filed by M/s
Vidhya Pharchem Private Ltd. against M/s Rajat Pharchem Limited, the
defendant No.1 herein, wherein the Company Court had permitted the
defendant No.1 to pay a sum of `6,50,00,000/- to the petitioner in the
said Company Petition, in full and final settlement of all its claim and
had further clarified that in case the defendant No.1 commits a default
in payment of the agreed installments, the Company Petition would
stand revived and in those circumstances, the respondent/company
would be wound up and an Official Liquidator shall be appointed to
liquidate the company.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff states that it would be appropriate if
orders in the present suit are deferred so as to verify as to whether
the defendant No.1 has deposited the first installment of `70,00,000/-
by 15.03.2015.
4. However, counsel for the defendant No.3 states that there would
be no point in awaiting the outcome of the aforecited Company
Petition for the reason the entire cause of action for instituting the
present case has arisen in Mumbai. He submits that the transaction in
question, which pertains to bills of exchange drawn by the defendant
No.1, in favour of the defendant No.3 and accepted by the plaintiff had
been prepared in Mumbai, the Agreement dated 04.11.2004 between
the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 was executed in Mumbai and all
the correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 with
regard to the bills of exchange, had also taken place between the
plaintiff's branch office at Mumbai and the head office of the defendant
No.3 situated in Mumbai.
5. After addressing arguments for some time, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the plaintiff states on instructions that the
plaint may be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the
competent court in Mumbai. He states that as the pleadings qua the
defendants No.1 and 3 are complete by now and admission and denial
of documents has also taken place, the entire pleadings and the
documents may be handed over to the plaintiff for being presented
before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai.
6. Subject to filing the certified copies of the pleadings and the
documents, the same shall be returned to the plaintiff through counsel
for being presented before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court,
Mumbai. The parties shall appear before the said court on 24.4.2015,
for further proceedings.
7. In view of the order passed above, the suit is disposed of
alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH 20, 2015
rkb
