Delhi District Court
Bch Electric Ltd vs Arun Pundir on 28 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. APOORV SARVARIA, CIVIL JUDGEI, NEW
DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
C.S. No:149/11
Unique Case ID No.02403C0074422011
BCH Electric Ltd.
1105, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi110001.
... Plaintiff
Versus
Arun Pundir
C/0. B S Rana,
E278 B, LIG Flat,
GTB Enclave, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi110092.
...Defendant
Date of Institution: 12.10.2011
Date of Reserving Order: 27.08.2013
Date of Order: 28.11.2013
ORDER ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11 OF CPC
1.By this order, the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for return of plaint shall be disposed of. Since, the application is challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this court, the same is treated as also filed under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC. It is stated in the application that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present case as the defendant is residing at Dilshad Garden which is not falling within the area of New Delhi District. The office of the plaintiff company where the defendant was working is in Faridabad, Haryana. The defendant had sent his resignation to the HR CS No. 149/11 BCH Electric Ltd. v. Arun Pundir Page 1 of 5 (Manager) of the plaintiff at Faridabad. Therefore, it is stated that merely because the head office of the plaintiff is situated in New Delhi would not by itself confer jurisdiction to this court.
2. It is further stated in the application that the authorisation letter in favour of the authorised representative is also not signed by a competent person but only by the company secretary.
3. In reply to the application, it is stated that the letter of intent dated 20.02.2008 which was signed by the defendant was signed from the head office of the plaintiff company at New Delhi. However, letter of appointment dated 25.02.2008 appending the terms and conditions was accepted by the defendant were sent to the defendant from the head office of the plaintiff company at New Delhi. The letter of confirmation dated 31.07.2008 was also sent from the head office at New Delhi. Also, the pay slip of the plaintiff shows the address of the head office of the plaintiff situated at New Delhi District. It is, therefore, stated in the reply that substantial part of cause of action has arisen in New Delhi and this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
4. This court has heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant/defendant as well as for the plaintiff and perused the record.
5. In support of his submission, Sh. Mukesh Ranjan, Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon the decisions in B S Verma v. K G Khosla Compressors Ltd. 85 (2000) DLT 554, Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. 168 (2010) DLT 326 (DB), Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel, II (2006) SLT 612, A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies AIR 1989 SC 1239 and Fortune Part Hotels Ltd. v. M/s. UG Hotels & Resorts Ltd. 2001 VII AD (Delhi) 368.
6. This court has heard Ld. Advocates for the parties and perused the record.
7. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintif has filed the present CS No. 149/11 BCH Electric Ltd. v. Arun Pundir Page 2 of 5 suit for recovery against the defendant who was an employee of the plaintiff as he had left the plaintiff without waiting for sanction of resignation letter and clearance of dues from the department of the plaintiff company and had also left the plaintiff without giving three months notice or paying three months salary to obtain no dues from all the departments. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of money alleging that defendant has breached the terms of employment and violated the obligations owed to the plaintiff without clearing dues.
8. In Para 12 of the plaint, the plaintiff company has stated that this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as cause of action arose in Delhi. However, it is not explained how cause of action arose within the limits of New Delhi District. From the perusal of the record, what can be gathered is that the defendant is a resident of Dilshad Garden, which area does not fall within the territorial juridiction of this court. He had joined the office of the plaintiff company at Faridabad as per the letter of intent dated 20.02.2008 filed by the plaintiff itself. Therefore, the defendant was employed as Senior Service Engineer at Faridabad. The only ground which has been orally argued is that the letter of intent was accepted by the defendant on 20.02.2008 at corporate office of the plaintiff which falls within the limits of New Delhi District. However, the plaintiff has not been able to show that the letter dated 20.02.2008 was signed by the defendant at the head office of the plaintiff at New Delhi. Further, in reply to the present application, the plaintiff has itself stated that the letter of intent dated 20.02.2008, letter of appointment dated 25.02.2008 and the letter of confirmation dated 31.07.2008 were all sent from the head office at New Delhi. Therefore, there is clear inconsistency in the stand of the plaintiff and it appears that the plaintiff is trying to hide the essential facts which would lead to determine the issue of territorial CS No. 149/11 BCH Electric Ltd. v. Arun Pundir Page 3 of 5 jurisdiction. If we go by the version given in the reply to the present application, the fact that these letters were sent from the head office of the plaintiff to the defendant would not by itself confer jurisdiction to the New Delhi District of NCT of Delhi. From the facts and circumstances that the defendant is not a resident of the New Delhi District and also the fact that the defendant had joined office of the plaintiff at Faridabad and the plaintiff is still having a branch at Faridabad where the defendant had joined his services, this court finds no ground which would confer territorial jurisdiction to this court as no part of cause of action has arisen in the New Delhi District.
9. The decision in B S Verma v. K G Khosla Compressors Ltd. relied upon by the plaintiff is not applicable to the material facts of the present suit. In the said case, the employee had filed a suit claiming damages for illegal termination and the point of jurisdiction was decided considering the fact that termination letter was issued from the registered office of the employer at New Delhi. The facts in the present suit are materially distinct from the above case. In the present suit, no termination letter had been issued. Merely sending a letter of intent from head office of the plaintiff would not confer territorial jurisdiction to this court considering the fact that the defendant had never worked in the head office of the plaintiff but only at Faridabad branch of the plaintiff.
10. The facts of Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr., A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P. Agencies and Fortune Part Hotels Ltd. v. M/s. UG Hotels & Resorts Ltd. are completely different from the material facts of the present suit. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to the present suit.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this court finds that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the defendant resides in Dilshad Garden which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Also, the cause of action did not arise within the territorial limits of this court but at Faridabad, CS No. 149/11 BCH Electric Ltd. v. Arun Pundir Page 4 of 5 Haryana where the defendant had joined the services and had left the services. Therefore, in view of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, the plaint is returned to the plaintiff to be presented before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit. The application is allowed in the above terms. Plaint be returned to the plaintiff upon filing certified copy of the plaint and documents and original documents be returned back alongwith court fee. Order be uploaded to www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (Apoorv Sarvaria)
on 28th November, 2013 Civil JudgeI/, New Delhi District
New Delhi
CS No. 149/11
BCH Electric Ltd. v. Arun Pundir Page 5 of 5