Delhi District Court
Ofb Tech Private Limited vs Siddaramaiah And Co on 4 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-02)
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No. 30/2024
M/s OFB Tech Pvt Ltd. .......Plaintiff
Having its Registered office at
G-22 C (UGF), D-1 (K-84),
Green Park Main,
New Delhi-110016
Versus
M/s Siddaramaiah & Co
A Partnership firm
Through its Partners
Mr. Siddaramaiah
Partner
Mr. Halahalli Siddaramu Satishkumar
Partner
Ms. Lakshmamma
Partner
All at
No. 35, 2nd Cross, Halahalli Mandya City,
Mandya, Karnataka-571401
.....Defendants
JUDGMENT
Date of filing of the suit : 16.01.2024
Date of submissions : 04.02.2026
Date of judgment : 04.02.2026
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,21,252/- filed by plaintiff against Defendants.
OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 1 of 6
2. Plaintiff's case in brief is that it is a Private Limited Company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Delhi and is engaged in the business of B2B supply and facilitation of raw materials of any nature that can be used in manufacturing, construction, services and other industries.
3. It is stated that in the month of April 2022, Defendants had approached the Plaintiff at its registered office in Delhi and sought supply of huge quantities of Bitumen (VG-30). Basis the representation made by the Defendants that it was a major player in the market and has great reputation and goodwill in the market, the Plaintiff agreed to supply the Defendants the material and accordingly, Defendants placed an order for supply of 19.63 metric tons of Bitumen (VG-30).
4. It is stated that on 07.04.2022, the Purchase order was placed by the Defendants upon the Plaintiff through Whatsapp and the time of placing of the order, the Plaintiff had categorically informed the Defendant that the pricing would be Rs. 45,466.10/- per metric ton and that 100% payment would have to be made before unloading. It is stated that only once Defendants gave its information to the aforesaid condition and the material was dispatched by the Plaintiff and the invoice was duly raised and delivered upon the Defendant.
OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 2 of 6
5. Case of Plaintiff is that on 08.04.2022, at the time of unloading, Defendant did pay an amount of Rs. 8,05,000/- to the Plaintiff. However, when the Plaintiff requested for the balance amount, in terms of Purchase order, the Defendant requested that it was running short of funds and assured the Plaintiff that it would pay balance amount shortly. Accordingly, Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to unload the entire material.
6. It is averred that despite multiple requests from the Plaintiff, Defendant has failed to clear the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,48,149/- payable by the Defendant. Since, the Defendant failed to clear the dues, Plaintiff was constrained to issue a Demand notice dated 06.01.2023 calling upon the Defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 2,48,149/- as due and payable on 06.01.2023, within 7 days. It is stated that Defendant replied to said Demand notice through a reply dated 13.05.2023 issued by its Advocate denying that any material had been supplied and sought a refund of the amount paid. Despite the supply of material, Defendant has failed to clear the entire outstanding due and payable towards to the Plaintiff.
7. According to Plaintiff, on the date of the filing of suit an amount of Rs. 3,21,252/- i.e. principle amount being Rs. 2,48,149 and interest amount being Rs. 73,103/- was due and payable by Defendant towards the Plaintiff as on 22.08.2023 including interest @18% per annum.
OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 3 of 6
8. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff include interalia Invoice Ex PW1/2 and E way bill.
9. Defendant had sent the written statement through post to the court. It challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is stated in the written statement that the defendant is doing its business in Mandya Karnataka. The plaintiff has its branch office at Bangalore. The defendant never placed order at Delhi.
10. Ld counsel for the plaintiff on the issue of territorial jurisdiction argued that registered office of plaintiff is in Delhi within jurisdiction of this court, everything related to transaction had occurred at Delhi.
11. Section 20 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down
20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.--Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction--(a)the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b)any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, providedthat in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 4 of 6 personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
12. As per the section the plaintiff as per sub clause 'a' could have filed the suit with in the jurisdiction of court where defendant resides or works for gain, which as reflecting from the record is Mandya City Karnataka.
13. It could under clause 'c' have filed the suit in the jurisdiction of court where part cause of action had arisen. Plaintiff in cause of action para writes that it first arose when the defendant first initiated contact with plaintiff and then when the defendant placed the order. It is not written where this contact was made or at what address the order was placed. Plaintiff admittedly has a branch office at Bangalore. EX PW 2 invoice has Karnataka address of plaintiff and that of defendant is also of Karnataka. This very document contains the account number of plaintiff for making payment, which is of the bank in Ahmedabad. The Ledger account of plaintiff Ex PW 1/6 has address of Gurgaon, Haryana. The plaintiff is relying upon one document Ex PW1/3, however, this document has no particulars whatsoever, which could show as to from where this document was generated and by whom.
14. There is as such no document on record to show that any part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court.
OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 5 of 6
15. It was argued by Ld counsel for the plaintiff that Invoice says that the jurisdiction of Delhi Court shall be made out. It is settled law that the parties by contract cannot agree to confer jurisdiction upon a court which is not in conformity with provisions of section 2 (c) of the Code.
16. In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs DLF Universal Ltd and another AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4446 and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs Bal Mukund Bairwa .
17. In view of above this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.
18. Ahlmad is directed to return the original plaint; original documents, if any, and filed on the record to the plaintiff after making endorsements thereon regarding the date of filing of the same as well as the date of return of the same, after keeping the photocopies /certified copies of plaint and such document on record as well as original order sheets.
19. The file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by anuradha anuradha shukla (dictated and announced shukla Date:
2026.02.05 in the open Court 15:56:55 +0530 on 04th February 2026; uploaded on 05th February 2026 (ANURADHA SHUKLA ) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South Distt., Saket, New Delhi OFB TECH Pvt Ltd vs M/s Siddaramaiah & Co Page no. 6 of 6