Delhi High Court
Sps Enerpros (India) Private ... vs Chetak Enterprises Limited & Ors. on 9 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005553
$~1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.12.2022
+ FAO (COMM) 153/2022 & CM APPL.44790-91/2022
SPS ENERPROS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Appellant
versus
CHETAK ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ms. Binisa Mohanty, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Daksh Arora and Mr. Prakhar
Prakash, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellant/Plaintiff impugns order dated 08.07.2022 whereby
the plaint of the suit has been returned for want of territorial
jurisdiction to be presented before the proper court.
2. Appellant/Plaintiff had filed the subject suit for recovery
contending that certain work order was issued by Defendant no.1 to
the appellant for rehabilitation and upgradation of NH-66 (erstwhile
NH-17) from KM 205/400 to KM 241/300 (Parshuram Ghat-Arawali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.12.2022
12:14:48
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005553
Section) to Four Lane with paved shoulder in the State of Maharashtra
under NHDP-IV on Hybrid Annuity Mode.
3. The contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff was that there are two
invoices which remained unpaid and accordingly, the subject suit has
been filed.
4. In the impugned order 08.07.2022, the Trial Court has noticed
that the registered address of Defendant no.1 is of Rajasthan, and the
registered address of Defendant no.2 is of Thane, Maharashtra. The
Branch Office of the plaintiff is at Pune, however, the registered office
is at New Delhi.
5. The contention of the Appellant/Plaintiff before the Trial Court
was that, though the work order mentions that exclusive jurisdiction
would be at courts of Mumbai, no cause of action had arisen in
Mumbai and none of the parties were situated in Mumbai.
Accordingly, courts at Mumbai have no jurisdiction.
6. Trial Court has noticed that no part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The only reason why
the suit has been filed in Delhi is because the registered office of the
plaintiff is in Delhi.
7. Being a civil suit for simplicitor recovery, the provisions of
Sections 15 to 20 CPC would be applicable and the suit is to be
instituted where the Defendants or each of the Defendants reside or
worked for gain or cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.12.2022
12:14:48
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005553
8. In the present case, no part of causes of action arises in Delhi.
The work order dated 27.10.2018 mentions the correspondence
address of Mumbai, however, the work order in paragraph-27 provides
the date and the place of delivery of notices and communication; if to
the employer: at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, and, if to the contractor, at
Assam. The work order is addressed to the Appellant/Plaintiff at their
address at Pimpri, Chinchwad, Pune. The work order has neither been
issued from Delhi nor is addressed to the registered office of the
Plaintiff at Delhi. The work that had to be executed was also not
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, no part
of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the
courts at Delhi.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that
respondent no.3 (Defendant no.3) i.e., National Highways Authority
of India has office in Delhi, and as such since one of the Defendants is
in Delhi, the suit would still lie in Delhi.
10. However, we are unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff for the reason that in the plaint
itself in paragraph-3, the Plaintiff has stated that Defendant no.3 is a
mere performa party and Plaintiff has no claim against him. The work
order has been issued by Respondent no.1 and work had to be
executed outside Delhi. Accordingly, the said contention does not
hold any merit, and is, accordingly, rejected.
11. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.12.2022
12:14:48
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005553
order dated 08.07.2022 of the Trial Court holding that the courts at
Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction.
12. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
DECEMBER 9, 2022/ib
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:15.12.2022
12:14:48
