* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 29th October 2025

Pronounced on : 17th November 2025

+ FAO (COMM) 214/2025

MTS PAPERS INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv.

versus

SPENTO PAPERS INDIA LLP .....Respondent

Through: Ms. Niyati Kohli & Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) against the order dated 22nd March 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-02, North District, Rohini Court in CS(COMM) No. 519/2022, whereby the learned District Judge had allowed the application of the respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that the plaint does not disclose as to how the courts of Delhi have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 44,88,961/- (hereinafter referred as ‘impugned order’).

Factual Matrix

2. Appellant/plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading of various paperboards. Appellant/plaintiff had a customer based in Vietnam with whom he had brokered a deal with the defendant to supply duplex board grey back (subject goods) with the understanding that all the goods supplied to that customer the defendant shall pay a pre-agreed commission to the plaintiff.

3. The role of the appellant was to communicate with respondent in respect of such supply of goods to the client including raising purchase orders, negotiating and finalizing price of goods, seeking proforma invoices, communicating the payment terms and issuance of letter of credit qua such supply to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was never put in direct contact with the client and communication was carried out through the appellant.

4. The appellant addressed emails dated 30th March 2021, and 13th July 2021 to the respondent requesting respondent to clear the payment towards the pre-agreed commission; however, the same remain unpaid.

5. Appellant on 18th September 2021, issued a legal notice to the respondent, in response to which vide reply dated 13th October 2021, the respondent denied liability to pay outstanding dues towards the pre-agreed commission. Appellant addressed a final communique dated 18th November 2021 to respondent whereby final opportunity was given to respondent to clear the dues of appellant. However, the same were not cleared by respondent.

6. Thereafter, appellant initiated legal action against the respondent by filing for pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on 07th February 2022. However, the respondent failed to appear for the pre-institution mediation.

7. Upon non-fruition of pre-institution mediation, appellant filed commercial suit bearing no. CS(COMM) No. 519/2022 under the Commercial Courts Act for recovery of Rs. 44,88,961/- along with interest @ 12% per annum.

8. On 22nd July 2023, Trial Court noted that the written statement along with application for return of plaint under order VII Rule 10 of CPC are on record.

9. On 06th April 2024, the Trial Court prima facie noted that the plaint does not appear to contain detailed analysis regarding jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.

10. Subsequently, an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was moved by appellant on 19th June 2024. Upon hearing arguments of both the parties, District Judge rejected the application for amendment of plaint relying inter alia upon the judgment of HSIL Limited v. Imperial Ceramic, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7185.

11. The Trial Court decided the application of respondent under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and returned the plaint of the appellant/plaintiff vide impugned order dated 22nd March 2025.

12. In the impugned order, it was noted th