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 Head Office and jurisdiction clauses in the Invoices.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2013 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 14.02.2023 vide which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed under Order XXXVII of CPC for a sum of Rs.53,69,918.70/- along with the interest @18% per annum.

2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as `respondent') filed the Suit under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 53,69,918.70/- along with the interest @18% per annum. The plaintiff is a registered Partnership Firm engaged in the business of trading and supply of construction material including aggregates. The defendant (hereinafter referred to as `appellant') engaged in the business of engineering and construction, pursuant to an Agreement was supplied the requisite material from 03.08.2017 to 14.01.2019 under various sale Invoices (280 in number), which were duly acknowledged and accepted by the appellant. Goods worth of Rs. 72,19,425.50/- were supplied during this period. As per terms and conditions of sale, the defendant was also liable to pay 18% per annum interest on delayed payments. A part payment of Rs.48,78,736/- was made till 29.08.2020 by the defendant but thereafter he failed to make payment of the remaining principal amount of Rs.23,40,689.50/- and also interest which comes to Rs. 30,29,229.20/- as on 30.09.2021. Despite service of Legal Notice dated 20.03.2021, the appellant failed to pay the amount; hence the suit for recovery of 53,69,918.70/- was filed.

3. The appellant after putting in his appearance, filed his "Leave to Defend" application wherein it was claimed that there is misrepresentation and concealment of facts by the respondent. The basis of the suit was not any written contract but the balance due at the foot of the Ledger Account. The suit was not covered under Order XXXVII of CPC and was liable to be dismissed.

4. It was further claimed that the Court had no "territorial jurisdiction" since all the transactions happened in Uttar Pradesh. The goods were dispatched from U.P., supply was also made at U.P. Further, objection was taken that there was no compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 "providing for pre-litigation mediation". The calculation of interest at the rate of 18% per annum was also challenged as being against the terms and conditions.

5. It was further claimed that the material supplied by the respondent was not of satisfactory quality, however was defective and sub-standard. Consequently, owners of the Project where goods were supplied withheld the money of the appellant. The appellant had already communicated to the respondent about the goods being defective.

6. The respondent had repelled the grounds agitated in the Leave to Defend of the appellant and asserted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction. It is explained that the Head Office of the defendant/appellant is in Barakhamba Road, Delhi. The Order for supply of goods as well as the payments towards the goods, was made by the defendant/appellant from the Barakhamba Road office. Moreover, it was stipulated in the Invoices that in case of dispute, the jurisdiction would be at Delhi. The claim of the appellant that this court has no jurisdiction is not maintainable.

7. It was claimed that the rate of interest as 18% per annum was mentioned on the Invoices which was signed on behalf of the appellant and thus, the respondent is entitled to recovery of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

8. It was further explained that the application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking urgent relief was filed and thus, the compliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for pre-litigation mediation, was not required.

9. Furthermore, the claim of the respondent was based on the "Written Contract" as conta