Delhi High Court
Siddhidatri Agro Private Ltd. vs Shoua Shams Est. Importers And ... on 7 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 334/2013
% 7th March, 2014
SIDDHIDATRI AGRO PRIVATE LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivram and Mr. Niraj Jha,
Advocates.
VERSUS
SHOUA SHAMS EST. IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS ......
Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC impugning the judgment of the court below dated 29.5.2013 which has returned the plaint for filing in the court of competent jurisdiction. Para-25 of the plaint on the basis of which jurisdiction at Delhi is invoked reads as under:-
"25. That the cause of action arose in Delhi since the agreement dated 20.01.2010 clearly stipulates that any disputes arising in between the parties to it will be dealt/decided under the jurisdiction of New Delhi. Further various correspondence via emails were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant from Delhi. Further, the FAO 334/2013 Page 1 of 3 legal notice was sent by the plaintiff through its counsel from Delhi, hence the courts of Delhi have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the instant suit. Further plaintiff is having registered office in delhi. It is further submitted that the payment was made from delhi. Therefore this Hon'ble court has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit."
2. There are therefore only two grounds on the basis of which courts at Delhi are claimed to have jurisdiction. One is that parties have agreed to the jurisdiction at Delhi courts and the second is that payment is sent from New Delhi.
3. In law, so far as the contractual matters are concerned, those courts will have jurisdiction where the cause of action arises in whole or in part i.e where the contract is executed or where the contract has to be performed/breached or where the payment under the contract is to be made. This is in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239. The only other ground on the basis of which Delhi courts would have jurisdiction would be if the defendant is carrying on business or working for gain at New Delhi.
4. The place from where the payment is made is not the place where whole or part of cause of action arises inasmuch as it is the place where FAO 334/2013 Page 2 of 3 payment is made and not the place from where the payment is sent which would give territorial jurisdiction to a court. Once courts at Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction merely because there is a clause in the contract giving the courts at Delhi territorial jurisdiction will not mean that the courts at Delhi will exercise territorial jurisdiction.
5. In view of the above, since neither whole nor a part of the cause of action accrued at Delhi and the defendant is also not working or carrying out business at Delhi, courts at Delhi would have no territorial jurisdiction.
6. The appeal is therefore without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MARCH 07, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
FAO 334/2013 Page 3 of 3