Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Mini Pushkarna, JJ.
M/s Jairam Marbles – Appellant
Versus
Evershine Marbles Co. – Respondent
RFA(COMM) 168 of 2023
Decided On : 11-08-2023
Limitation - Territorial Jurisdiction - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - [Limitation, Territorial Jurisdiction, Commercial Courts Act, 2015] - The court discussed the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in relation to the limitation period for filing the suit and the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the territorial jurisdiction was rightly decided in favor of the respondent/plaintiff based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the appellant/defendant for non-payment of invoices for marble supplied. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant appealed against the judgment, raising objections related to limitation and territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not barred by limitation as the appellant/defendant had made partial payments and the ledger of accounts showed a balance amount due to the respondent/plaintiff. The court also upheld the territorial jurisdiction based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices.
Issues: The issues involved the limitation period for filing the suit and the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation based on the partial payments made by the appellant/defendant and the balance amount shown in the ledger of accounts. The court also upheld the territorial jurisdiction based on the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoices.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favor of the respondent/plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2022 passed by Learned District Judge (Commercial Court) - 01, West, Tis Hazari Courts in Case no. CIV DJ No. 610027/2016 in "Evershine Marbles Co. v. M/s Jairam Marbles".
2. By way of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff and against appellant/defendant for a sum of Rs. 7,81,859/- along with interest @ 10 % per annum from 01.04.2012 till realization with cost.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/defendant herein had business relations with respondent/plaintiff, wherein respondent/plaintiff used to supply marble to appellant/defendant as per the requirement and choice of appellant/defendant.
4. The respondent/plaintiff had supplied marbles to appellant/defendant vide three invoices, as under:
i) Invoice dated 03.07.2011 amounting to Rs. 5,18,095/-
ii) Invoice dated 23.07.2011 amounting to Rs. 7,55,764/-
iii) Invoice dated 31.12.2011 amounting to Rs. 3,93,751/-
5. On supply of goods, the last invoice was returned by appellant/defendant on account that the material was not as per its specification. Consequently, respondent/plaintiff issued debit note for the same.
6. Appellant/defendant paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 23rd August, 2011 towards the goods supplied, however, remaining amount was not paid. On account of the said default, respondent/plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 13,89,447/- by filing suit for recovery in the court of District Judge (Commercial Court), Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi. The learned Trial Court by way of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 28th May, 2022 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 7,81,859/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Thus, the present appeal has come to be filed on behalf of appellant/defendant.
7. It is the case on behalf of appellant/defendant that learned Trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit as the invoices were raised on 03.07.2011 and 23.07.2011. However, the suit was filed after expiry of 3 years on 25.07.2014. Thus, the suit of respondent/plaintiff was barred by limitation in terms of Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 being beyond the period of 3 years from the date of delivery of goods i.e., 03.07.2011 and 23.07.2011 respectively as no fixed period of credit was agreed upon between the parties.
8. Further, it is contended on behalf of appellant/defendant that no cause of action had arisen in Delhi and nothing was pleaded by respondent/plaintiff to show as to how the cause of action had arisen in Delhi. The appellant resides and works in Agra, Uttar Pradesh and the goods had also been supplied in Agra.
9. It is the case on behalf of appellant/defendant that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that no demand was raised by respondent/plaintiff till 26.01.2014 regarding the invoices dated 03.07.2011, 23.07.2011 and 31.12.2011 as appellant/defendant had paid the amount to the respondent/plaintiff and was willing to return the defective goods supplied by the respondent/plaintiff.
10. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent/plaintiff that the Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.2022 has been passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) - 01, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, so the appeal ought to have been filed under the provisions of Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It is submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable as the same has been filed under the provisions of Order 43 Rule lA (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and the provisions under which the appeal has been filed is not applicable to the Judgment and Decree dated 28.05.2022 passed by the Commercial Court.
11. It is submitted that the present appeal is time barred as after passing of the Judgment and Decree on 28.05.2022, appellant/defendant had applied for the certified copies of the same only on 20.08.2022 i.e., after 8
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the registered office of a defendant determines the territorial jurisdiction of a court, and a clause in a contract ousting the jurisdictio....
Point of Law : Recover of amount - Jurisdiction - Section 20 clearly provides that a court within whose local limits the cause of action, “wholly or in part”, arises, would have territorial jurisdict....
The suit under Order XXXVII of CPC is maintainable when based on written contracts (Invoices) and not on the Ledger Account. Territorial jurisdiction can be established based on the location of the H....
Acknowledgment of liability must be in writing to reset limitation under the Limitation Act; jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arises, not merely the location of the registered office....
The court emphasized the importance of written statements and denial of allegations in determining the acceptance of contentions at an early stage of the case.
The court confirmed that jurisdiction is established where significant parts of the cause of action arise, supported by relevant documentation, and upheld the decree in absence of a legitimate triabl....
The jurisdiction of courts in civil matters is determined by the location of payments made, as established under Section 20 of the CPC.
The admission of invoices by a defendant can lead to a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, and jurisdiction is determined by the location of the cause of action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction clause in the invoices cannot be invoked without a prior dispute, and the LLP Act provisions make the LLP solely liable for i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
