RFA(OS)34.2008

Page 1 of 47

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RFA(OS) No.34/2008

Bhandari Engineers & Builders

Pvt. Ltd.

…..Appellant through

Mr. Raju Ramachandran,

Sr. Adv. with Mr. S.S.

Jauhar & Ms. Prabhjot

Jauhar, Advs.

versus

Vijaya Bank & Ors.

…..Respondent through

Mr. Ashwini K. Mata, Sr.

Adv. with Mr. Raja Balal &

Ms. Manmeet Sethi, Advs.

for Respondent No.1

%

Date of Hearing: January 12, 2010

Date of Decision: January 20, 2010

CORAM:

*

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the Judgment?

No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the Judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

Yes

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The Appellant, namely, Bhandari Engineers & Builders

Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter compendiously referred as ‗BEBP‘ or

Plaintiff/Appellant) assails the Judgment dated 8.5.2008 of the

learned Single Judge whereby its Suit for Declaration and

Permanent

Injunction

came

to

be

dismissed.

The

Plaintiff/Appellant had arrayed Vijaya Bank as Defendant No.1;

2010:DHC:310-DB

RFA(OS)34.2008

Page 2 of 47

Saudi Hollandi Bank as Defendant No.2 and Civil Works

Company Limited, Saudi Arabia (CWC Saudi Arabia) as

Defendant No.3. There has been no representation on behalf of

Defendants No.2 and 3 before the learned Single Judge. It

appears that notice has not been issued to Defendants No.2 and

3 in this Appeal. However, since the matter has been argued at

great length, and keeping in perspective the conclusion that we

have arrived at, we think it unnecessary to delay the disposal of

the Appeal by insisting on service of notice on Defendant Nos.2

and 3.

2. It is evident from the impugned Judgment that the learned

Single Judge was of the opinion that the Plaintiff had made

serious misrepresentations to the Court. After a detailed

discussion on the facts of the case it was found that the Plaintiff

was not entitled for any interim relief. Secondly, the learned

Single Judge has returned the finding that Courts in India do not

possess territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the said case.

Hence, the Suit was also dismissed as not maintainable.

3. We shall first deal with the question whether this Court

possesses territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate over the dispute.

Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‗CPC‘

for short) immediately becomes relevant. It stipulates that if the

Court is of the opinion that it does not possess territorial

2010:DHC:310-DB

RFA(OS)34.2008

Page 3 of 47

jurisdiction, it must return the plaint for filing in the appropriate

Court. It does not postulate the dismissal of the suit. Since it is

clear that the dismissal of the suit was not predicated only on

the absence of territorial jurisdiction, we shall desist from

making any further observations. This is for the reason that a

suit can also be dismissed under Rule 11 of the said Order VII of

the CPC which, inter alia, states that a plaint can be rejected

where it does not disclose a cause of action or appears, from the

statement in the Plaint, to be barred by any law.

4. The Prayers made in the Plaint read thus:-

43. (a) pass a decree of Declaration in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant No.1 declaring that

the counter guarantee No.FBG/RFC/01/105 in favour

of Saudi Hollandi Bank, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,the

Defendant No.2 is void;

(b) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the

Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that the

performance guarantee No.050119IS721CA dated 19^th

January,

2005 issued

by

Saudi

Hollandi

Bank,

Defendant No.2 herein in favour of Defendant No.3 for

a sum of Rs.SAR 12.50 million valid for a period of 45

months beginning 18^th January, 2005 and ending on

18^th October, 2008, is void;

(c) a Decree Permanent Injunction in favour of the

Plaintiff and agains