Delhi District Court
Gammon India Pvt. Ltd vs Deepak Rana on 14 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH,
ADJ03 (SOUTH WEST), DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, NEW
DELHI
RCA05/13
In the matter of
Gammon India Pvt. Ltd.
Gammon House,
Veer Savakar Marg,
P.O. Box No.9129,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai400025 ............Appellant
Versus
Deepak Rana
Proprietor of Innovative Brains
Plot No.13A, Kh. No.17/2
Sukhiram Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi ......... Respondent
Date of Institution of Appeal: 07/01/2013
Date on which reserved for Judgment: 21/01/2014
Date on which Judgment passed : 14/02/2014
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dt. 27/11/2012 passed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge/Rent whereby the application for RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 2 leave to defend filed by appellant/defendant was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. Civil Judge dt. 27/11/2012, appellant/defendant preferred the present appeal.
2. The relevant brief facts for the purpose of disposal of present appeal are that respondent/plaintiff has filed the civil suit under order XXXVII of the CPC against the appellant/defendant for recovery in the sum of Rs.2,39,803.18/ alongwith interest. As per respondent/plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that in the month of March April, 2010, defendant company through its P & M Manager Sh. Manish Dutta had approached the plaintiff/respondent for availing the maintenance services for its cranes which were carrying out work at the site for the construction of the Moolchand to Badarpur metro Line. It was agreed between the parties that appellant/defendant will avail the services of the respondent/plaintiff for repair of the cranes and will make the payment on time and within 30 days of the receipt of the bills/invoices. It was further agreed between the parties that the maintenance services would be provided on site Moolchand to Badarpur metro line and plaintiff would depute its employee/engineer for the said purposes. Thereafter, plaintiff/respondent deputed its engineer for the repairs of SLI of 8 hydra cranes and one crawler crane 955 ALC and had completed its task within time of four days i.e. from 04/04/2010 to 07/04/2010. After finishing the RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 3 repair work, plaintiff/respondent raised various invoices bearing NO. 024,025,026 and 027 all dated 07/04/2010 and total bills raised by the respondent/plaintiff was of Rs.1,70,632/ including interest @ 18% p.a in case billed amount was not paid by the due date or within 30 days of the date of invoice. It has been also stated in the plaint that the all above said invoices were duly sent by the plaintiff and were received and acknowledged by the defendant/appellant on 09/04/2010 and respondent/plaintiff has also deducted service tax @ of 10.3 % on the total billed amount as provided under the said invoices and same has already been deposited with concerned department. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the defendant/appellant has duly acknowledged its liability to pay the said amount to the plaintiff and has deducted a TDS of Rs. 3,413/ and deposited the same to the concerned department/authorities, then appellant/defendant has also issued a TDS certificate dt. 4/8/2010. Respondent/plaintiff also stated in the plaint that despite availing the services of the plaintiff and acknowledgment of the said invoices, the appellant/defendant has completely failed to make any payment to the said invoices to the plaintiff despite numerous requests and reminders. Further, respondent/plaintiff alleged that instead of clearing the outstanding amount, the appellant/defendant has sent a false and frivolous letter dt. 17/8/2011. Thereafter, after not receiving the amount of above said RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 4 invoices from the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff send a legal notice dt. 26/03/2012. Despite the legal notice, defendant has failed to make the payment, hence, the plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,39,803.18/ alongwith interest under order XXXVII CPC before the Ld. Trial court. After putting appearance and service of summons for judgment, the defendant/appellant has filed an application for leave to defend before the Ld. Trial court which was dismissed by Ld. Trial court vide order dt. 27/11/2012 and decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff.
3. Aggrieved by the order dt. 27/11/2012 passed by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Dwarka Courts, the appellant/respondent has filed the present appeal stating therein that Ld. Trial court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the documents filed alongwith the case was pleased to dismiss the leave to defend. The impugned order is also assailed on the ground that there is no document on record to show that there is an acknowledgment of the defendant/appellant company with respect to the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. The impugned order is also challenged by the appellant on the ground that Ld. Trial court has wrongly interpreted section 20 CPC and wrongly hold that the court had jurisdiction because the subordinate office is within the local limits of Ld. Trial court. It is contended by the appellant that suit of the RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 5 respondent/plaintiff does not comply with ingredients as envisaged in Order 37 Rule 2 of the CPC, hence, suit of the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable under order 37 CPC. It is contented by the appellant that the facts involved in the suit of the respondent/plaintiff requires extensive evidence, hence, Ld. Trial court has committed error in law by dismissing the leave to defend as the claims raised by the respondent/plaintiff and defence of the appellant in the plaint were the triable issue.
4. Respondent/plaintiff has filed reply to the appeal wherein it is contented that Ld. Trial court has passed the order dt. 27/11/2012 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further contented that no triable issue or ground was raised by the appellant/defendant in the application for leave to defend, hence, same was dismissed by Ld. Trial court on the basis of documents placed on record. It is further contended by the respondent that appellant no where denied the fact that the respondent had not provided its service to the appellant and has clearly admitted its liability towards the respondent. Respondent also contented that appellant has also deducted the TDS on the payment to be released to the respondent and a TDS certificate was also issued, hence, no issue is left to be decided. The respondent also contended in the reply to the appeal that present appeal is liable to be rejected on ground that it was not filed by the duly competent or authorized person on behalf of RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 6 appellant. Respondent/plaintiff in its reply to the appeal, denied the allegations and averments of the appellant/defendant and contended that as appellant/defendant failed to raise any triable issue, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was without any jurisdiction and just to harass the appellant/defendant. He contended that entire plaint of the respondent/plaintiff was silent on the fact as to how cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial court as there is not even a whisper of the fact that the payment was to be released from the Dwarka Office. Counsel for appellant also submitted that as the invoices were sent to Sarai Kala Khan office of the appellant, hence, the respondent/plaintiff contention that the payment was to be made from Dwarka office is a false and frivolous and afterthought. Counsel for appellant also argued that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit before the trial court on the ground that appellant had subordinate office within the jurisdiction of the trial court, but the appellant has subordinate offices across the country and it does not means right to the respondent to file a case against the appellant within the territorial jurisdiction of any of the office.
RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 7
7. It is further argued by the counsel for appellant/defendant that entire case of the respondent/plaintiff is on assumptions and without any document or even any averment to substantiate. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order and decree dt. 27/11/2012 is liable to be set aside. Counsel for appellant has also relied upon the judgments of Patel Road ways Ltd. Vs. Prasad Trading Corporation (AIR1992 SC 1514), Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. JSC VTB Bank Ltd. 2012(130) DRJ142, Kamla Chopra Vs. Life Insurance Corporation AIR 1975 Delhi 15, Gujarat Insecticides V Jainson Mineral & Anr (2009) 153, PLR 1.
8. On the other hand, counsel for respondent submitted that the appellant/defendant is having its office at Dwarka within the jurisdiction of the trial court. He further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has carried out work at Delhi and invoices were raised at Delhi and further the payment was to be made at Delhi from the office at Dwarka. He also argued that in the present matter no cause of action has arisen at the principle office at Mumbai and since the defendant is having subordinate office in Delhi at Dwarka and suit is maintainable within the jurisdiction of Dwarka Court. Counsel for respondent further submitted that it is well settled law that where cause of action has arisen at two places, the plaintiff has liberty to file the suit as per his convenience.
RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 8 He also submitted that the cause of action deem to be arisen at a place where money is expressly or impliedly payable. Counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that Ld. Trial court has passed well reasoned order as the appellant/defendant failed to raise any triable issue, hence, the present appeal also liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for respondent has also relied upon the judgments of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989)2 SCC 163, J.C. Enterprises (Regd) Vs. Ranganatha Enterprises178(2011)DLT 689, M/s. Lakhpat Rai Hukam Chand Vs. M/s. Chhedi Ram Raj Kumar AIR 1979 Patna 120 and M/s. KLG Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s. Fujitsu ICIM Ltd.AIR2001 Delhi 357.
9. I have gone through the record and perused the file and also considered the rival submissions of the counsel of the parties and case law relied upon by the respective parties.
10. In the instant matter, the Ld. Trial court has dismissed the application for leave to defend and decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The main contention of the appellant is that Ld. Trial court was not having the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent against the appellant as the appellant/defendant company does not falls within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial court. It is also the contention of appellant that respondent/plaintiff has not filed any RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 9 document on record to show that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. trial court. Appellant further contended that the Ld. Trial court erred in law and fact that trial court had territorial jurisdiction as per Section 20(a) CPC just because the appellant company has subordinate office within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
11. There is no dispute that the services were provided by the respondent/plaintiff company to the appellant/defendant company at Delhi i.e. at Indraprasth Park, Sarai Kale Khan. The invoices was raised at Delhi and same has been acknowledged by the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant having its office at Dwarka. The office of the respondent/plaintiff is admittedly situated at Uttam Nagar. From perusal of invoices, it is apparent that there is no mention of any fact on the invoices nor there is any agreement which shows or suggests that payment were to be made by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff from which offices of the appellant/defendant. It has also stated that the Sarai Kale Khan site of the appellant company is no more in existence. The respondent/plaintiff company is having its office at Uttam Nagar. All the transactions between the appellant and respondent company were taken place at Delhi, the services were also provided by the appellant to the defendant at Delhi. The defendant is also having its subordinate office at Dwarka. Hence, I am in agreement of the observation of Ld. Trial court RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 10 that it can be assumed that the payment were to be made at the office of appellant company.
12. In the judgment titled as J.C. Enterprises (Regd.) vs. Ranganathan Enterprises 178 (2011) Delhi Law Times 689 wherein it was observed that in the suit for price of goods sold and delivered which in effect is also the suit for breach of contract on the part of the defendant by not paying the price of the goods in terms of the agreement between the parties, the cause of action, within the meaning of Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure arises at the following places:
i) The place where the contract was made.
ii) The place where the contract was to be performed which in such a contract would mean the place where the goods were delivered to the purchaser.
iii) The place where money in performance of the contract was payable, expressly or impliedly.
13. In the judgment titled as T.L. Verma & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gammon India Ltd I.A.NO.14953/2012 (O.XXXVII R.3(5) CPC) in CS(OS) 2219/2011 wherein it was observed that ' The first and foremost issue which arises is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Admittedly, the Plaintiff is based in Chandigarh and the Defendant in Mumbai. The goods were supplied at Rajasthan.
RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 11 However, a perusal of the communications between the plaintiff and the Defendant placed on record show that the Defendant had been placing the purchase orders from its Delhi office, that is, Ahluwalia Chambers, 16/17, LSC, Madangir, New Delhi110062. The communications also given the phone numbers and email address of the Delhi office. Once the purchase orders have been placed by the Defendant from its office at Delhi and the Defendant is operating from Delhi it can safely be held that the Defendant is working for gain at Delhi and thus this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. I find no merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the Defendant that there was no office of the defendant at Delhi and the same was only a correspondence address.
14. In the instant case also the transaction between the parties were taken place at Delhi the respondent/plaintiff having its office at Uttam Nagar, Delhi and appellant was having its office at Dwarka, hence, Ld. Trial court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the defendant.
15. Though appellant/defendant alleged the conspiracy between the plaintiff/respondent and staff of appellant, to extort the money from the appellant company, but appellant has failed to prove any such conspiracy between the respondent/plaintiff and staff of the appellant/defendant. Further it is admitted fact that the RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 12 respondent/plaintiff company had provided the services to the appellant/defendant company, as same has not been disputed by the appellant.
16. Therefore, as discussed above, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal and order and decree dt. 27/11/2012 passed by Ld. Trial court does not require any interference. Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Trial court record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment.
17. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/02/2014 (LAL SINGH) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03(SW) DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 13 RCA05/13 Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana 14/02/2014 Present: None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, appeal is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of this judgment.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(LAL SINGH) ADJ03/ DWARKA COURTS/N.D. 14/02/2014 RCA05/13 Gammon India P. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Rana