Delhi District Court
Devyani Food Industries Ltd vs Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde on 26 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELAM SINGH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-02, SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM)-289/20
M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd.
Having its registered office at:
F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110020
Through its Authorized Representative
Shri Bhaskar Mishra ..... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Smita Impex
Through its Authorized Representative
Shri Sanjiv Shinde
301, B-11, Lake Town
Bibwewadi, Pune-411037
Maharashtra .....Defendant
Date of Institution: 21.10.2020
Arguments concluded on : 26.03.2025
Date of Judgment: 26.03.2025
JUDGMENT
The crux of facts stated in brief is noted below:
Case of the plaintiff;
1.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at F2/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi 110020. It is submitted that plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 1 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.03.26 16:31:39 +0530 marketing of Ice cream, dairy, non-dairy and other allied frozen products (the products) under the brand name of 'Creambell'. That vide Purchase order No. DFIL/16-17/001 and DFIL/16-17/002 both dated 04.04.2017, plaintiff placed an order upon defendant for supply of 32,000 Kg of Raw Cashew Nuts of Ivory Coast Crop grade. That the total amount of order placed upon defendant for the supply of Raw Cashew was worth Rs. 30,78,400/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred only) and in terms of the purchase order, advance payment equivalent to 20% of the Purchase order being sum of Rs. 6,15,680/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) was paid to defendant on 21.04.2017 against the performa invoice no. RCN/01 dated 12.04.2017.
1.2 It is submitted that despite being in receipt of the advance payment in terms of the purchase order, defendant has miserably failed to supply material being Raw Cashew Nuts of Ivory Coast, despite passing of more than two years. That defendant has been time and again requested by plaintiff to deliver the material, however defendant kept on deferring the same on one pretext or other.
1.3 It is further submitted that defendant vide their e-mail dated 09.08.2019 acknowledged that plaintiff had placed an order upon defendant in respect of Ivory Coast Raw Cashew and assured plaintiff that the product will be delivered before 10th September, 2019. It is further submitted that plaintiff issued communication CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 2 of 15 Digitally signed NEELAM by NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.26 16:31:47 +0530 dated 12.08.2019 thereby making it clear that plaintiff is willing to accept either the product or the refund of amount, if adhered to within the period of 15 days from the date of e-mail i.e. 12.08.2019.
1.4 It is further submitted that defendant failed to honor their commitment and thus plaintiff was constrained to issue the notice dated 03.10.2019 through its legal manager thereby calling upon defendant to repay the amount of Rs. 6,15,680/- (Rupees Six Lacs Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty only) along with an interest @ 18% p.a. That defendant despite duly been served with the legal notice, failed to comply with the terms of notice and till date plaintiff has not been in receipt of the amount paid in advance towards purchase order and hence, the present suit.
Case of the defendant;
2.1 Written Statement has been filed on behalf of defendant by submitting that the present suit is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law only to harass and blackmail the answering defendant. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as neither the cause of action ever arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court nor the defendant is residing or work for gain within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 3 of 15 Digitally signedNEELAM by NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.03.26 16:31:58 +0530 2.2 It is further submitted that the plaintiff itself breached the terms of the contract, hence it is not entitled for any relief as mentioned in the prayer clause of the plaint under reply. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately misrepresented and concocted facts and the averments made in plaint are vague and misleading. In fact whole contents of the Plaints are false, frivolous, concocted, wrong, vague and misleading.
2.3 It is further submitted that the real and correct facts are that as per the purchase order issued by the plaintiff and accepted by the defendant, the payments terms were 20% advance and 80% by letter of credit. The plaintiff gave the advance by NEFT but were not able to issue the letter of credit from their bank. The plaintiff was not able to meet the payment terms of the purchase order. When their inability to issue the letter of credit was conveyed to the defendant, he told them he will see what can be done. The market situation meanwhile turned volatile and the defendant was not able to supply the goods. The suppliers of the defendant in Ivory coast to whom the defendant had given advance also disappeared. Later the defendant had told them that no matter what happened in the past he will return their advance but due to CORONA situation the defendant was not able to do it. However, it is submitted that plaintiff is not entitled for any interest as claimed. It is submitted that the suit being frivolous in nature be dismissed.
CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 4 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAMNEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:32:09 +0530
3. Replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff, where he has reiterated the submissions made in the plaint and has denied the submissions made in the Written Statement by the defendant.
4. For better adjudication of case, following issues came to be framed:
1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
2. Whether the suit has not been filed on behalf of plaintiff as per the Mandate of Commercial Courts Act? OPD
3. Whether there is an admission on the part of the defendant qua the suit amount received by the defendant? OPP
4. Whether there is any breach of contract on behalf of plaintiff in not performing the contract in question i.e not arranging letter of credit in favour of defendant? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,15,680/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest on the decreetal amount, if yes, then at what rate and for which period? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit? OPP
8. Relief.CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 5 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM
NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:32:18 +0530
5. (a) The matter then was kept for evidence. In order to prove the case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Bhaskar Mishra as PW-1 working as Manager-Legal in the plaintiff company, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon the following documents:
1. Certificate of incorporation is de-exhibited as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Board resolution is Ex. PW1/2.
3. Purchase order bearing no. DFIL/16-17/002 dated 28.03.2017 is Ex. PW1/3.
4. Purchase order bearing no. DFIL/16-17/001 dated 28.03.2017 is Ex. PW1/4.
5. Proforma invoice dated 12.04.2017 is Ex. PW1/5.
6. E-mail dated 12.08.2019 is Ex. PW1/6.
7. E-mail dated 09.08.2019 is Ex. PW1/7.
8. Demand notice dated 03.10.2019 with postal receipt proof of delivery is Ex. PW1/8 (Colly).
9. Legal notice of demand notice dated 22.11.2019 alongwith postal receipt is Ex. PW1/9 (Colly).
10. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/10.
11. Non-starter report is Ex. PW1/11.
(b) PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced as under:
"I am working as DGM (Legal) with plaintiff company. I am working with plaintiff company since last nine years. It is correct that I have been looking after the legal works of the plaintiff company. It is wrong to suggest that no transaction took place with the defendant from Delhi office. It is correct that individually I did not issue purchase orders dated 28.03.2017 and 04.04.2017 to the CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM SINGH NEELAM Date:
SINGH 2025.03.26
16:32:33
+0530
defendant. It is correct that I did not receive perfoma invoices in individual capacity from the defendant. It is correct that I did not sent email dated 12.08.2019 to defendant in individual capacity. (Vol. The same was sent by one Sh. Pawan Aggarwal in response to the defendant's email dated 09.08.2019). It is correct that Sh. Pawan Aggarwal has not filed on record certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act. It is correct that there is no agreement regarding interest is agreed between the parties. However, it is mentioned in email dated 12.08.2019. It is correct that defendant did not reply upon email dated 12.08.2019. Q: I put it to you that the defendant never agreed for payment of any interest as claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. What do you have to say?
A: The defendant never replied to the email dated 12.08.2019. So it cannot be said that plaintiff is not entitled for the interest. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff is not entitled for any interest expressly or imprecisely from the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I am not entitled as well as not the right person to issue certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act in the present case.
It is a matter of record that the plaintiff was also obliged to give 80% payment through letter of credit to the defendant. (Vol. As per the further communication between the parties, it was agreed that the plaintiff company will make only 20% advance payment and the balance payment will be paid after the delivery of the goods by the defendant and the same was conveyed and accepted by the defendant vide its email dated 09.08.2019. At this stage, the witness is confronted with email dated 09.08.2019.
Q: I put it to you that the defendant never accepted vide its email dated 09.08.2019 that the "plaintiff company will make only 20% advance payment and the balance payment will be paid after the delivery of the goods by the defendant". What do you have to say? A: It is no so specifically mentioned in the email but the defendant had admitted the delay in delivery and committed for delivery of goods before 10th September 2019. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant was only obliged his part of the contract after the full compliance of the payment terms i.e. 20% advance and 80% against letter of credit. It is wrong to suggest that after the compliance of said payment terms as mentioned in purchase order dated 28.03.2017 and 04.04.2017 then, the defendant had to supply the goods and not prior to that. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff did not make the payment as per purchase order, so the defendant did not supply the goods. It is correct that the plaintiff did not propose the defendant for the payment of 80% through letter of credit at any point of time. (Vol. It was agreed between the parties that the goods will be supplied against the advance payment of 20% and the balance payment will be paid after the delivery of the goods. It is wrong to suggest that there was no such agreement between the parties that the goods will be supplied against the advance payment of 20% and the balance payment will be paid after the delivery of the goods. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant never admitted the said agreement as mentioned herein above. It is correct that I personally did not exchange any email with the defendant. (Vol. The legal demand notice was sent by me to the defendant). It is CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.03.26 16:32:41 +0530 wrong to suggest that no notices were ever served upon the defendant by the plaintiff. I am working at Okhla branch of the plaintiff which is a registered office. It is wrong to suggest that defendant had not done any transaction from the Delhi office. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the suit before the wrong jurisdiction and same is not maintainable before this court. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff has breached the terms of contract. It is wrong to suggest that no notice of mediation was ever served upon the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff is not entitled for 18% interest per annum. It is wrong to suggest that I misinterpreted and misrepresented the email of the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I am not entitle to recover an amount of Rs. 6,15,680/- from the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff has filed false and frivolous suit against the defendant".
6 (a). Plaintiff has also examined PW-2 Sh. Pawan Agarwal who Chief Financial Officer & Whole Time Director of plaintiff company, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A.
(b) He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for defendant. Relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced as under:
"It is correct that I have not placed any authority letter on behalf of plaintiff company authorizing me to depose before this Court. It is correct that my job profile is not to prepare purchase orders for the plaintiff company. It is correct that personally I have not issued any purchase order to the defendant. (Vol. But my team has issued the same). It is wrong to suggest that plaintiff has breached the agreement with the defendant. It is correct that the mail dated 28.03.2017 and several other e-mails as mentioned in my affidavit-
in-chief in para no. 4 is not on record.
It is correct that I have not filed any certificate u/s 65-B of IEA. I know the contents of my affidavit Ex. PW2/A. I also know the contents of my plaint. It is correct that contents of para no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Ex. PW2/A do not contain in my plaint. It is correct that I did not personally communicated with the defendant on 28.03.2017, 30.03.2017, 04.04.2017, 14.04.2017 and 20.04.2017. (Vol. My team had communicated with the defendant.) It is wrong to suggest that contents of para 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Ex.PW2/A are false and concocted statement. It is correct that raw cashewnut had to be supplied to my Mathura plant, Uttar Pradesh. The purchase orders dated 28.03.2017 (three in number) were issued from my Mathura office, Uttar Pradesh to the defendant. It is wrong to suggest that performa invoices dated 12.04.2017 had been received in my Mathura office, Uttar Pradesh. It is correct that all the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant had happened from my Mathura office to the address of defendant i.e. Pune, CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:32:52 +0530 Maharashtra.
It is wrong to suggest that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding interest as claimed in my plaint. (Vol. Plaintiff has stated in a mail about the interest part to which the defendant agreed). It is wrong to suggest that defendant never agreed for any interest.
Ques. I put to you that there is nothing is written in document to show that balance 80 per cent amount was to be paid at the time of delivery. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
It is wrong to suggest that I am not entitled for the interest at the rate of 12 per cent as mentioned in para no. 9 of Ex.PW2/A. It is correct that there was no reply of the defendant to my e-mail dated 12.08.2019 in the Court record. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing false".
Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, PE was closed.
7. (a) Thereafter, matter then was kept for defence evidence. In order to prove its case defendant has examined AR for the defendant company Sh. Madhav Rao Shinde as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A.
(b) He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. Relevant portion of his cross examination is reproduced as under:
"I am the proprietor of defendant firm. I have not filed any document on record qua my proprietorship or I being the proprietor of defendant firm. I have not filed any authority letter in my favour. (Vol. I am the proprietor of defendant firm and the notice has been issued in my favour, thus, I am competent to depose before this court). It is correct that there was a transaction in the year 2017 between plaintiff company and me/my firm. It is correct that performa invoice was being raised by my firm and there was also purchase order which was being issued by plaintiff company. The performa invoice being exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 was raised by my firm and it bears my signatures at point A. The purchase order being exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 (colly) were issued by the plaintiff company in my favour. The affidavit of admission/denial dated 10.07.2023 has been filed under my signatures and is now CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:33:03 +0530 Ex.DW1/P1 which bears my signatures at point A and B. It is correct that in Ex.DW1/P1, I had denied the Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/4 (colly) and Ex.PW1/5. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed false affidavit of admission/denial on court record. My email address is [email protected]. I admit that Ex.PW1/7 (email dated 09.08.2019) was sent by me to Sh. Pawan Aggarwal. I am not aware with whom he was working. It is correct that Mr. Pawan Aggarwal was working with Cream Bell Company, I am not aware if he is still working with Cream Bell or not. Ex.PW1/8 (colly) and Ex.PW1/9 (colly) was not received by me. That the address mentioned in Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9 i.e. M/s Smita Impex, 301, B-11, Lake Town, Bibwewadi, Pune, Maharashtra-411037 was my old address. In the year 2019, said address was the firm's address and this address was vacated in the year 2022.
It is wrong to suggest that draft LC was shared by plaintiff company with me.
At this stage, copy of email dated 14.04.2017 sent through email through [email protected] has been shown to the witness to which he states that this email has been sent by me. Copy of email is now Ex.DW1/P2. (Vol. Draft LC is usually an application to the bank to issue LC, the said application was not shared with me).
At this stage, copy of email dated 20.04.2017 at 17.30 sent through email through [email protected] has been shown to the witness to which he states that this email has been sent by me. Copy of email is now Ex.DW1/P3. (Vol. I had told Mr. Pawan Aggarwal specifially that if supplier will give credit, then, I would be able to give credit to you). At this stage, copy of emails dated 24.04.2017 at 14.39 and email dated 27.04.2017 at 10.18 am sent through email through [email protected] have been shown to the witness to which he states that these emails have been sent by me. Copy of emails are now Ex.DW1/P4 and Ex.DW1/P5.
I have not filed any written communication on record in support of my aforesaid statement that I had told Mr. Pawan Aggarwal specifically that if supplier will give credit, then, I would be able to give credit to you.
I on behalf of my firm have not written any communication to the plaintiff company stating thereby that the material could not be supplied to the plaintiff company for the want of LC. (Vol. Most of the communcation with plaintiff representative had happened over phone calls and I have informed the same to him). It is correct that the amount equivalent to 20% of the invoice amount totalling to Rs. 6,15,680/- was received by me from the plaintiff company towards the advance payment. It is correct that I have not returned the said amount.
At this stage, witness is shown para 9 of his WS whereby it has been stated that "later the defendant had told them that no matter what happened in the past, he will return their advance but due to Corona Situation the defendant was not able to do it".
Q: I put it to you whether after the Corona period, anytime he has offered to pay the amount to the plaintiff company?
CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAMNEELAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.03.26 16:33:18 +0530 A: No. It is wrong to suggest that I am liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount being retained by me. It is wrong to suggest that I have illegally retained the advance amount paid by the plaintiff company. It is wrong to suggest that I was not able to deliver the product and neither returned the advance amount due to my deficiencies in performing the contract. The email dated 12.08.2019 at 13.13 Ex.PW1/6 was received by me. I do not remember if any reply/communication was sent by me in response to the email dated 12.08.2019. It is correct that I have not filed any document on record in support of my contention that the payment was made by defendant to the supplier in ivory coast and neither I have filed any document in support of my contention that the said supplier has disappeared with the payment.
It is wrong to suggest that as agreed between the plaintiff and defendant the balance 80% of the payment was to be made by plaintiff company only after the supply of the entire commodity/material of raw cashew. It is wrong to suggest that I/defendant firm failed to supply the material to the plaintiff company and thus, I failed to complete the part of my contract. I do not know where is the registered office of the plaintiff company. I do not know if the registered office of the plaintiff company is at F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. I do not know if all the accounts are maintained by the plaintiff at the aforesaid address. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
8. Final arguments heard. Record perused carefully. I have gone through the testimony of witnesses for both the sides and on the basis of arguments rendered by both the parties, documents, pleadings and testimony of witnesses, my findings are as follows:
Issue No. 1: Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The plaintiff has instituted the suit before this court solely on the ground that its registered office CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:33:29 +0530 is situated in Delhi. However, the defendant has argued that mere existence of the registered office does not confer territorial jurisdiction if no part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of this court.
10. From the material on record, it is evident that the transaction between the parties did not have any connection with Delhi. The purchase order was placed for the supply of raw cashew nuts, and the defendant's office is situated in Pune, Maharashtra. The plaintiff had agreed to take delivery of the goods at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, during the cross- examination, PW-2, Sh. Pawan Agarwal, categorically admitted that all transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place between the plaintiff's Mathura office and the defendant's Pune office. The Board Resolution authorizing PW-1, Sh. Bhaskar Mishra, to depose in the present suit also bears the address of Gurgaon, Haryana, instead of Delhi. These facts establish that no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi.
11. In the case of M/s. Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 124 , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the mere existence of a registered office at a particular place does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts of that place unless some part of the cause of action has arisen there. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:
CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAMNEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:33:36 +0530 "11. Thus, for the purpose of section 20 of the Code, a company having both a principal office and a subordinate office at a different place would be deemed to carry on business either at the principal office or at the place of the subordinate office but not at both places. If the cause of action arose at the place of the subordinate office then the company would be deemed to carry on business at the place of the subordinate office alone. On the other hand, if the cause of action did not arise at the place of the subordinate office then the company would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office.
.
.
18. Clearly, on the basis of the averments in the plaint itself and in the backdrop of the observations in Dhodha House (supra), the appellant / plaintiff carries on business in Deogarh, Jharkhand. It may also carry on business at Delhi. But, because the cause of action has allegedly arisen in Deogarh, Jharkhand, and not in Delhi, the appellant/plaintiff cannot sue the defendants/respondents in Delhi in view of the decision in Sanjay Dalia (supra). Thus, this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. And, on this count, the decision of the learned single judge cannot be faulted. But, the suit ought not to have been dismissed. As this court did not have jurisdiction, the plaint ought to have been returned under order 7 rule 10 CPC. Only to that extent, the learned single judge had erred."
12. I could also lay my hands in M/s. New Moga Transport Co. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 677 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction is determined based on where the cause of action arises and not merely on the basis of a CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:33:45 +0530 plaintiff's registered office. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish that any part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. In view of the above discussion, it is held that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Issue No. 1 is decided in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
13. Since the issue of territorial jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff, the suit itself cannot be maintained before this court. It is a well-settled principle that when a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the case. In Hiralal Patni v. Kalinath, (1962) AIR SC 199, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once a court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must refrain from proceeding with the case and cannot decide any other issue on merits. Therefore, in light of the decision on Issue No. 1, all other issues do not require further consideration, and the suit is liable to be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Conclusion
14. In view of the above discussion, this court holds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. Mere existence of the plaintiff's registered office in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction when all transactions occurred between Mathura and Pune. Since the issue of jurisdiction is decided against the plaintiff, there is no CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 14 of 15 Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.03.26 16:33:53 +0530 need to examine the other issues on merits. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by NEELAM
Announced & dictated NEELAM SINGH
SINGH Date:
in the open Court on 2025.03.26
16:31:30 +0530
this 26th day of March, 2025 (NEELAM SINGH)
District Judge
(Commercial Court-02)
South-East, Saket Courts, ND
CS(COMM)289/20 M/s Devyani Food Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Smita Impex Through Sanjiv Shinde Page 15 of 15