Territorial jurisdiction in respect of the claims that are subject matter of the suit would vest in the competent court within Mumbai, and the court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try, or decide the suit.

JUDGEMENT

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J. I.A. 16022/2022 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 fo