The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 16, 19, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs 50 lakhs as damages alleged to have been suffered by the Plaintiff on account of illegally grounding of its aircraft, pursuant to an order passed by Bombay High Court. The Plaintiff-company, which was earlier known as M/s NEPC Micon Limited, claims to be the owner of Beach Craft King Air C-90-A Aircraft having purchased it in the year 1995. Vide its interim order dated 25th August, 2008, passed in Notice of Motion No. 220 of 2007 in Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2003 filed by the Defendant, seeking attachment, impounding and sale of the above-referred aircraft, an order came to be passed for attachment of the above-referred aircraft. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant had falsely alleged before Bombay High Court that the aforesaid aircraft belongs to Skyline NEPC Limited, whereas, in fact, it belonged to the Plaintiff-company. The aircraft came to be attached at Delhi on 03rd October, 2008. The case of the Plaintiff is that it suffered huge losses and undue hardship on account of attachment of the aforesaid aircraft and, therefore, is entitled to damages amounting to Rs 50 lakhs from the Defendant.

2. The Defendant has contested the suit and has taken preliminary objections including that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit.

3. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties:

1. Whether the suit is barred in law as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement? OPP

2. Whether the Delhi Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged under preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement? OPP

3. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and the suit instituted by the competent person? OPP

4. Whether order of attachment of the aircraft of the Plaintiff company was obtained by the Defendant by playing fraud and on misrepresentation, as alleged in the plaint? OPP

5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any damages from the Defendant and, if so, to what amount? OPP

6. Relief.

Arguments have been heard on the issues of territorial jurisdiction.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that in view of the provisions contained in Section 16(f), 19 and 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has jurisdiction to try the present suit.

5. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the extent it is relevant, provides that suits for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

6. This is not a suit for recovery of movable property. Admittedly, the attachment of the aircraft has already been revoked by the Bombay High Court. In the present suit, the Plaintiff is seeking recovery of damages on the ground that the attachment was illegal as the aircraft belonged to it and not to M/s Skyline NEPC Limited. Therefore, the suit is not at all governed by the provisions of Section 16(f) of the Code.

7. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that subject to "the limitations aforesaid" every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Section 19 of the Code, to the extent it is relevant, provides that where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of jurisdiction of one Court and the Defendant resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted, at the option of the Plaintiff, in either of the said Courts. The contention of learned Counsel for the Defendant is that since the provisions of Section 20 of the Code, have been made subject to limitations contained in other provisions, which would include Section 19 thereof, Clause (c) of Section 20 would not apply, in case Section 19