Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

.1. By virtue of the order dated 11.12.2007, the following issue was directed to be treated as the preliminary issue:

.(1) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and determine the suit? (OPD)

2. The counsel for the parties were heard on this preliminary issue. The plaintiff has instituted this suit against the defendant on the ground that the defendant had placed purchase orders on the plaintiff for supply of electrical equipments which had to be delivered to the defendant at its factory at village and P.O. Dagori, Tehsil Belha, District Bilaspur, M. P. (now Chhattisgarh). The plaint alleges that the defendant had initially issued letters of intent, which contained the terms of the supply to be made by the plaintiff to the defendant and the price and delivery conditions etc. The letters of intent were confirmed by purchase orders, which were placed by the defendant on the plaintiff. Details of the purchase orders have been set out in Paragraph 6 of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that as against the said purchase orders, which were accepted by the plaintiff, supplies had been made to the defendant. The defendant had taken delivery of the said supplies and had made part payments in respect thereof but not the entire sums. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendant had acknowledged that out of all these transactions a sum of Rs. 24,35,837.10 was admittedly outstanding and due from the defendant to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff this acknowledgment and admission is contained in the minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant at Dagori, Bilaspur on 12.08.1995. It was also contended that apart from the said sum of Rs. 24,35,837.10, a further sum of Rs. 5.20 lacs was also due from the defendant on account of the supply of VCBs subsequent to the meeting of 12.08.1995.

.3. The defendant, on the other hand, has resisted this suit on the ground that nothing was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. While the defendant has not denied that purchase orders were placed by the defendant on the plaintiff for supply of materials, it was contended that the material was required to be supplied as per stringent specifications and that it was also the essence of the purchase orders that the material should be supplied within a specific period so as to enable the defendant to use it at an appropriate time during the installation and commissioning of its plant at Bilaspur. It is contended by the defendant that the material that was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant was not of the desired specification and it was also not supplied as per schedule. It was also stated in Paragraph 6 of the written statement that the material that was delivered beyond schedule was not received by the defendant and, in fact, the carrier was not permitted to unload the material which was late delivered at the site. It is also alleged that the defendant suffered losses as a result of the conduct of the plaintiff, which the defendant had quantified at Rs. 10 crores and the defendant sought to reserve its right to file a suit for damages and compensation against the plaintiff for the same. Of course, till date no such suit has been filed. The defendant, thereforee, contended that it is not liable to pay any money as claimed by the plaintiff or at all.

4. This is the sum and substance of the dispute between the parties. However, the limited question that has to be considered at this stage is with regard to this Courts jurisdiction over the matter. In Paragraph 15 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant has an office in Delhi and also carries on its business at Delhi. It is further alleged that the defendant placed purchase orders at Delhi, which were sent to the plaintiff at Delhi. The payments were to be made at Delhi and, in fact, part payments were made at Delhi. The defendant, in Paragraph 15 of the written stateme