Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
M/S DORO DESIGNS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
M/S RADIUM CREATION LTD – Respondent
FAO-48/2020
Part cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of a court confers territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - PART CAUSE OF ACTION: Where part of the cause of action for filing a suit has accrued in Delhi, the Courts at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a company based in Delhi, filed a suit against the respondent, a company based in Mumbai, for non-payment of invoices for fabrication and finishing work done on articles sent by the respondent to Delhi. The respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, contending that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The trial court returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, holding that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that part of the cause of action had accrued in Delhi since the articles were sent to Delhi for fabrication and finishing and were processed there before being sent back to Mumbai. The court noted that the dispute was over the quality of the work done in Delhi.
Issues: Whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for adjudication in accordance with law.
FAO 48/2020
$~12
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Judgment delivered on: 12th January, 2022
+
FAO 48/2020
M/S DORO DESIGNS PVT LTD
..... Appellant
versus
M/S RADIUM CREATION LTD
..... Respondent
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner
:
Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:-
JUDGMENT
1.
The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
2.
Appellant impugns order dated 30.10.2019 whereby the plaint
has been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, on an application filed
by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
3.
The plaint has been returned on the ground of alleged lack of
territorial jurisdiction by the trial court. It has been held that the
averments in the plaint that discussion and negotiation had taken place
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000130
FAO 48/2020
in the Delhi office were bald and vague averments without the same
being substantiated by any material. In these circumstances, the plaint
has been returned.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
trial court has erred in not appreciating that apart from the discussion
that had taken place in the office at Delhi the arrangement between the
parties was that work was undertaken by the appellant at Delhi which
clearly showed that part of the cause of action arose in Delhi and the
Courts at Delhi would have jurisdiction.
5.
He submits that the business transactions between the parties
were that the respondent used to send raw material or semi-finished
articles to Delhi on which the appellant was supposed to do certain
additions and fabrication work after which the finished articles were
sent back to the respondent in Mumbai.
6.
He submits that since admittedly the articles were received in
Delhi for processing and further fabrication and then sent back to
Mumbai and the ground for non-payment by the respondent of the
invoices of the appellant is that the job work undertaken by the
appellant in Delhi was not up to the mark and the goods were rejected
by the buyer.
7.
He submits that part cause of action accordingly arose in Delhi
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000130
FAO 48/2020
and as such the Courts at Delhi would have the territorial jurisdiction
in terms of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
8.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent admits that the
nature of business was such that the articles were sent to Delhi for
fabrication and finishing and then shipped to Mumbai. He, however,
submits that on merits, the appellant has no case and respondent had
suffered substantial loss because of the deficient job work of the
appellant.
9.
The dispute in the present case with regard to the merits of the
claim of the appellant and the defence of the respondent. However, it
is not in dispute that articles were sent by respondent to Delhi for
fabrication and finishing and they were processed in Delhi and then
sent back to Mumbai to the respondent. The dispute is with regard to
the quality of the work done by the appellant on the articles at Delhi.
10.
Clearly part of the cause of action for filing the subject suit has
accrued in Delhi and in view thereof the impugned order dated
30.10.2019 holding that no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi
is erroneous and is not sustainable.
11.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 is
set aside. The matter is remitted to the concerned trial court for
adjudication in accordance with law.
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000130
FAO 48/2020
12.
Parties shall appear before the concerned Court on 21.02.2022.
Trial court shall thereafter dispose of the Suit in accordance with law.
13.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
14.
Copy of the orde
