$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 94/2025 & CM APPL. 22575/2025 (Stay) STP LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Mr.

Vijayender Kumar and Mr.

Maharshi Kaler, Advocates.

versus BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Karan Prakash, Ms.

Deepshikha Kumar and Mr. Om Bali, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 31.10.2025

1. The present Appeal, filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1 and Sections 104 & 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assails the Correctness of the Order dated 13.02.2025, [Impugned Order] passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in case being CS(COMM.) No. 729/2022, titled “STP Limited v. BGR Energy Systems Limited”

2. Vide the said Order, the plaint of the Plaintiff [“Appellant herein”] was directed to be returned along with annexures and documents for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. The said order has been passed solely on the basis of exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the invoice issued by the Appellant, and the Court has not examined as to whether any part of cause of action ever arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta or not.

4. It is open to the parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon a Court where a part of cause of action arises by mutual agreement. However, it is not permissible to confer territorial jurisdiction upon a Court where no cause of action has arisen.

5. In these circumstances, the Court was required to examine whether any part of cause of action arose in territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta or not.

6. The record reflects that the Defendant [“Respondent herein”]

was ex-parte in CS(COMM.) 729/2022.

7. The Appellant had concluded its ex-parte evidence and the Court while deciding the suit chose to pass the aforesaid order.

8. In fact, the Commerical Court has relied upon in the impugned order, the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited : 2013 (9)

SCC 32 without completely appreciating the same.

9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent is unable to dispute that the impugned Order does not deal with the aspect of whether any part of cause of action arose in Calcutta or not.

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the Impugned Order is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commercial Court, New Delhi, for fresh decision.

11. Parties through their counsels are directed to appear before the Commercial Court, New Delhi, on 11.11.2025.

12. The Court will proceed with the case in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, the present Appeal along with the pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

OCTOBER 31, 2025/tk/kr/rn