Sanmarg Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 7598 Del

*              HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CRP 145/2015 & CM APPL.21851/2015

                                         Decided on: 5th October, 2015

       SANMARG INFRATECH PVT. LTD.     ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. K.K Rohtagi Adv.

                          versus

       LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA PVT.
       LTD.                         ..... Respondent
                   Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.21852/2015 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.21853/2015 (delay)

Delay of 35 days in re-filing the petition is condoned as

sufficient cause is shown. Application stands disposed of.

CRP 145/2015

1. This is a revision petition filed against the order dated

01.06.2015, by virtue of which, the learned Civil Judge, South,

Saket Court had decided the issue of territorial jurisdiction

against the petitioner/defendant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the

respondent/plaintiff herein supplied RMC to the

petitioner/defendant for the purpose of some construction. For

this purchase, bills/invoices were duly drawn and received by the

petitioner. The total amount of money, which was due and

payable by the petitioner to the respondent was Rs. 4, 58,950/-.

The accounts were settled and it was found that there was an

outstanding balance of Rs. 2, 21,100/- payable by the petitioner

to the respondent. Since the aforesaid amount was not paid a

suit for recovery came to be filed by the respondent.

3. In the said suit, the Ld. Trial court framed the issues including

one as to whether the courts in Delhi have territorial jurisdiction

or not and the same was treated as a preliminary issue.

4. The petitioner had contended that all the material was supplied

under a tax invoice, in which it was clearly mentioned against

serial No.5 in the terms of sale that disputes, if any, will be

subject to jurisdiction of courts situated at seller's place of work

or where the seller has registered office i.e. at Faridabad or

Mumbai respectively. Meaning thereby, as the respondent

herein was the seller of RMC, therefore in the event of any

dispute arising between the petitioner and the respondent, the

same was to be dealt with by the court within whose jurisdiction

the seller was discharging the material or having its registered

office etc.

5. This contention was negated by the learned trial Judge who

decided this issue against the petitioner by holding that Delhi

Court has the jurisdiction on the basis that the respondent has an

office in Delhi and goods were supplied in Delhi and also that

there was no express agreement between the parties regarding

jurisdiction.

6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order has

preferred the present Revision Petition and has raised the same

pleas which were raised by it before the trial court regarding lack

of jurisdiction by Delhi Court.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has urged before this court that

jurisdiction would be decided as per the terms of the invoice and

absence of words 'only', 'exclusive' etc. would not affect the

applicability of territorial jurisdiction clause. Reliance in this

regard is placed on two Supreme Court judgments Swastik Gases

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited; (2013) 9 SCC 32

and Hakem Singh v. M/s Gammon (India) Ltd.; 1971 (1) SCC

286 to contend that place mutually decided upon in agreement

should have jurisdiction.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the

impugned order as well as the record. I do not find that there is

anything illegal, improper or there is any jurisdictional error in

the impugned order wherein the issue that the Delhi Court has

the jurisdiction has been decided in favour of

respondent/plaintiff. The reason for this is that a perusal of the

tax invoice will clearly show that although it has been

specifically mentioned that the dispute, if any, between the seller

and purchaser would be subject to the jurisdiction of court at

seller's place however, it is clearly laid down in Section 20 CPC

that the jurisdiction for instituting a suit would lie at a place

where the defendant resides, works for gain or where the cause

of action either wholly or partly has arisen. As the seller is the

supplier of RMC at Delhi, therefore, Delhi court has been rightly

held to be having the jurisdiction since cause of action arises in

Delhi.

9. Apart from this, the fact of the matter remains that the suit is

filed by the respondent for sum of only Rs. 2,21,100/-, which has

not been able to make substantial progress because of these

pleas, which are being raised by the petitioner.

10. The present Revision Petition in my view is totally misconceived

and no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned

Civil Judge. The Revision Petition is dismissed.

11. Pending application also stand disposed of.

V.K. SHALI, J.

th OCTOBER 5 , 2015 n