$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 28.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 281/2024 & CM APPL. 72787/2024 JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Govind Manoharan, Mr. Tenzing Namgyal Bhutia, Mr. Rithwik Narayanan and Mr. Pallav Arora, Advs.

versus M/S. PRAGYAWAN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohan Chawla, Ms.

Ananaya Narin Tyagi, Ms. Darshana Deepak Das and Mr.

Rohan Rana, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant assails the correctness of the order dated 17.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 4516/2024 in CS (COMM) No. 759 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the Respondent's [Defendant before the learned Single Judge] application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟] and returned the plaint for presentation before the competent court, while also imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- on the Appellant [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge] for suppression of material facts.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The Appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture of irrigation systems and pipes, entered into a commercial arrangement with the Respondent for the supply of 2000 Kms of PLB Duct pipes in four tranches. The total sale consideration for the project was estimated at Rs.9,79,40,000/-.

3. The transaction sequence, as per the pleadings, is as follows:

i. Preliminary Negotiations: Representatives of both parties met on several occasions in early 2019 to discuss requirements, which discussions allegedly took place at the Appellant‟s office at Delhi.

ii. Techno-Commercial Offer: On 07.06.2019, the Appellant issued a formal response letter from its Delhi office, recording the terms for the supply of 2000 Kms of pipes.

iii. Purchase Orders: Subsequently, the Respondent issued two Purchase Orders:

a. PO No. PTPL/JAIN/DUCT/06/2019001 dated

10.06.2019.

b. PO No. PTPL/JAIN/DUCT/07/2019/002 dated

10.07.2019.

iv. Dispute and Breach: Disputes arose regarding Third-Party Inspection Agency (TPIA) delays at the Appellant's Jalgaon (Maharashtra) factory, marking protocols on the pipes (specifically the exclusion of the Appellant‟s name), and discrepancies in the Letters of Credit (LC).

v. Recovery Suit: The Appellant instituted the underlying suit [CS (COMM) 759/2023] seeking recovery of Rs.3,49,70,864.13/- representing unpaid dues for goods delivered and losses incurred due to the Respondent's alleged failure to take delivery of the remaining pipes.

4. The Appellant invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court primarily on the basis that the Respondent maintains its registered office at Delhi and that the Purchase Orders issued by the Respondent contained an "exclusive jurisdiction clause" vesting jurisdiction in Delhi Courts.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:

5. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in returning the plaint. Learned senior counsel has submitted that as dominus litus, the Appellant has the inherent right to choose its forum among the options available under Section 20 of the CPC.

6. It was argued that a material part of the cause of action accrued in Delhi, where preliminary negotiations occurred and the techno- commercial offer – the bedrock of the agreement was issued. Since the Respondent‟s registered office is also in Delhi, the Appellant maintains that jurisdiction was properly invoked under Section 20(a)

and (c).

7. Learned senior counsel further emphasized that the Respondent is bound by the "exclusive jurisdiction" clause contained in its own Purchase Orders. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the Respondent cannot unilaterally retract from this contractual