JUDGMENT :

[Amit Bansal, J.]

I.A. 12748/2022 (of the defendants u/O-XXXVII R-3(5) of the CPC) and I.A. 10658/2022 (of the defendants u/O-VII R-11 of the CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for recovery of Rs.2,53,02,720/-along with pendente lite and future interest.

2. Summons in the suit were issued on 22nd December, 2021. The defendants entered appearance and filed an application, being I.A.12748/2022, seeking leave to defend. The defendants also filed I.A.10658/2022 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC for rejection of the plaint. Pleadings in both the aforesaid applications have been completed.

3. Submissions on behalf of the counsels were heard on 24th November, 2022 and 12th December, 2022. On 12th December, 2022, the parties were referred for mediation, however, the mediation proceedings were not successful.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded in the plaint are as under:

4.1 Plaintiff company is a third-party logistics company, which, inter alia, provides freight forwarding and transportation services.

4.2 Defendant no.1 is engaged in the business of logistics and warehousing in India and defendant no.2 is the proprietor of the defendant no.1.

4.3 In February/March, 2019, the defendants approached the plaintiff, on behalf of their clients, to provide freight forwarding services for shipment of various goods from Hong Kong.

4.4 As per the arrangement between the parties, once the goods were brought to the customs ports in India by the plaintiff, a delivery order would be issued to the defendants to enable to the defendants to collect the goods from such ports. Once the delivery order was issued, the plaintiff would raise an invoice on the defendants.

4.5 The plaintiff stopped receiving payments from the defendants against its invoices dating back to 12th March, 2019 raised on the defendants. This is despite the fact that the defendants have never complained about the quality of service, nor have the defendants raised any dispute regarding the invoices.

4.6 On 22nd August, 2019, the plaintiff received the last payment of Rs.10,00,000/-made by the defendants.

4.7 Various assurances were given by the defendants to the plaintiff via e-mail and WhatsApp messages that the payment would be released. However, despite repeated reminders by the plaintiff to the defendants, the defendants did not release the outstanding amounts.

4.8 As on date, 436 invoices amounting to Rs.2,53,02,720/-are outstanding, on which the defendants have also deducted tax.

5. Accordingly, the present suit was filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC seeking recovery of Rs.2,53,02,720/-.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

6. In the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the defendants as well the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the main ground taken on behalf of the defendants is with regards to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit.

7. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendants that the defendants are situated in Chennai, Tamil Nadu and hence, no cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen at New Delhi. The counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has placed reliance on the Explanation to Section 20 of the CPC to submit that a ‘corporation’, which also includes partnership firms like the defendant no.1, can only be sued where such corporation has its principal or subordinate office in India. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgments in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 161 and Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 9 SCC 129.

8. It is further submitted by the counsel for the defendants that in the present case, out of total 436 invoices, at least 400 invoices were in respect of goods to be delivered in Chennai and therefore, substantial cause of action would arise in Chennai.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE P