JUDGMENT

I.A. 26323/2025

1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”], has been filed on behalf of the Defendants No.1 & 2 for rejection of the Plaint.

2. The present Suit is one for rendition of accounts and damages.

3. Facts, in brief, as mentioned in the Plaint, are as under:

a. The Plaintiff herein and the Defendant No.1 executed an Agreement for Channel Telecasting and Distribution on 25.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as „the Agreement‟). The Defendant No.1 was appointed as the Plaintiff’s Channel Agent responsible for launching and placing the Plaintiff’s news channel on 13 different TV networks.

b. It is stated that the Agreement expired on 24.04.2019. Disputes between the parties have arisen in lieu of the invoices raised by the Defendants for period between April 2018 to March, 2019.

c. The Defendants claims to have raised legitimate invoices totaling to Rs.21,36,00,000/- for the said period with an outstanding balance of Rs.3,36,20,000/-.

d. Both parties agree that the Plaintiff has paid Rs.17,67,80,000/- during the course of the Agreement. The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff issued cheques totaling to Rs.2,08,62,000/- to settle part of the outstanding liability. Though the Plaintiff alleges that these cheques were stolen and materially altered by the Defendant.

e. The Plaintiff on the other hand asserts that it paid Rs.17,67,80,000/- to the Defendants but only Rs.11,62,40,388/- was used for legitimate services rendered by channel distributors.

f. Following this sequence of events, the Plaintiff has filed the present Suit with the following prayers:

“a. For a judgment and decree against the Defendants to render a full account of receipts and expenditure for the period starting from 25.04.2018 till 31.12.2019.

b. For a decree against the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No.2, jointly and severally, for such sum as may be found due upon taking of accounts, on payment of court-fees by the Plaintiff.

c. For a decree of damages, against the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No.2, jointly and severally, after inquiring into actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to breach of contract and deficient service provided by the Defendants, on payment of court-fees by the Plaintiff.

d. For cost of suit; and

e. Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. By way of the present Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the learned Counsel for the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s Suit is not maintainable under law as it does not disclose a cause of action, is improperly valued and is barred by law. However, during the course of proceedings, another objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the Defendants that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.

5. Learned Counsel for the Defendants state that the issue of territorial jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and a judgment rendered by a Court having no jurisdiction is a nullity. He states that clause 15 of the Agreement specifically states that only the Courts at Hyderabad shall have the jurisdiction to entertain all disputes and differences arising between the parties.

6. Learned Counsel for the Defendants states that the Parties, by Agreement, have ousted the jurisdiction of all other Courts other than the Courts at Hyderabad and, therefore, it was not open for the Plaintiff to file the present Suit at Delhi.

7. Learned Counsel for the Defendants has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar Verma v. HDFC Bank Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 752, and also on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, (1954) 1 SCC 710 to contend that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.

8. Per contra, learned Co