Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Ms Unissi India Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Ms Highway Construction Co & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) No. 324/2022, I.A. No. 7773/2022, I.A. No. 7774/2022 & I.A. No. 16022/2022
Decided On : 15-03-2024
CPC - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 20 - [20(a), 20(c)] - The court discussed the territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and its application to the present case. The court referred to the relevant clauses of the purchase order and the location of the contract's making and performance to determine the territorial jurisdiction. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 to interpret the application of section 20(c) CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff company sought recovery of a substantial amount from the defendants for supply and erection of oxygen generation plants. The defendants filed an application seeking return of the plaint, arguing that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the cause of action had arisen entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contract was made and performed in Mumbai, and therefore, the competent court within Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction over the claims. As a result, the court allowed the application and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, considering the location of the contract's making and performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the CPC and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 to determine the territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the contract's making and performance.
Final Decision: The court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try, or decide the suit and allowed the application, directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
JUDGMENT
I.A. 16022/2022
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. - By way of the present application filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ('CPC'), defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 seek return of the plaint, premised on the submission that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or decide the present suit since the cause of action has arisen entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of law at Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. By way of the suit, the plaintiff company/M/s. UNISSI India Pvt. Ltd. with its corporate office in Sultanpur, New Delhi, seeks recovery of Rs. 4,25,97,132.84 from the defendants, alongwith return of the additional material allegedly lying at a certain site, or in the alternative, for payment of the cost of such material which is assessed at Rs.16,13,530/-.
3. The plaintiff also seeks pendent-lite and future interest alongwith costs, as detailed in the plaint.
4. The brief factual matrix as narrated in the plaint, that is relevant for purposes of the present application, is as follows :
4.1. The plaintiff company is in the business of supplying various types of medical equipment to its clients. Defendant No.1/M/s. Highway Construction Co. is a partnership firm, with defendants Nos.2 and 3 as its partners. The defendants are stated to have approached the plaintiff, through a third party, one M/s. Concept Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for bidding in a tender floated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ('MCGM') for supply and erection of oxygen generation plants of various capacities during the then prevailing COVID-19 pandemic.
4.2. The plaint alleges that after some discussions had taken place between the plaintiff, the defendants and the third party (who acted as their go-between), the plaintiff addressed a letter of authority dated 25.04.2021 ('Authority Letter') to the Municipal Commissioner, MCGM, Mumbai, Maharashtra authorising the defendants to represent the plaintiff in the tender floated by the MCGM.
4.3. Furthermore, the plaint states that since the work under the tender was to be executed in Mumbai, the plaintiff appointed one Mr. Rajender Kadu as its authorized representative, who sent an e-mail to the defendants detailing the terms and conditions for supply of equipment for the project. The plaint further narrates that the concerned parties met the plaintiff at its Delhi Office on certain dates, which culminated in the issuance of a Purchase Order dated 08.06.2021 by the defendants to the plaintiff.
4.4. As cited in the application, the following paragraphs of the plaint are relevant :
"3. That the Defendant No. 1 acting through Defendant No.2 and 3 approached the Plaintiff via M/s Concept Healthcare Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (Mr. Rajender Kadu) for applying to a tender floated by Municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), Mumbai, for supply and erection of 16 PSA based Oxygen Generator Plants (18 Skids) having various capacities consisting of various groups.
"8. That at last on 08.06.2021 a formal purchase order was issued by the Defendants to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff's Delhi office. As per the purchase order the scope of work assigned to the Plaintiff was Supply, Installations, Testing and Commissioning (SITC) of PSA based Oxygen Generator Plants along with Standard Accessories at the Hospitals, Health Centers at Various Locations within MCGM Jurisdiction. The total value of the PO was Rs.24,65,15,500.00/- excluding GST. The said purchase order further contained detailed terms and conditions. Though the purchase order was issued on 08.06.202 (sic, 08.06.2021) the work had already been started as per mutual understanding and also in view of the urgent situation that arose due to second wave of Covid-19 Pandemic.
"11. That despite non receipt of entire payments as agreed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff's team consisting of Mr. Rajender Kadu, Devender Gupta and Anand Telang reached Mumbai on 11th June' 21 for the site survey and the drawin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of territorial jurisdiction under section 20 of the CPC, emphasizing the significance of the location of the contract's making and ....
Jurisdiction in contract disputes depends on where significant acts occurred, not solely on contractual jurisdiction clauses.
Jurisdiction in contract disputes is determined by the site of contract acceptance and performance, not merely the location of offer invitation.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court must consider the entire plaint averments before rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and specific averments made in t....
The jurisdiction of courts in civil matters is determined by the location of payments made, as established under Section 20 of the CPC.
Point of Law : Return of plaint – Jurisdiction of Court- Work Contract - Cause of action for the institution of the suit has arisen at Raipur where the alleged contract was executed Hence Court has j....
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
