Delhi District Court
Judge04 vs M/S. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd on 14 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI J.P.S.MALIK, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE04, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS. no. 12/11
M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd.
Plaintiff ..............
Versus
M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd.
Defendant..........
14.12.2012
ORDER
1. Plaintiff company M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 19,45,566/ against the defendant company claiming that defendant company had approached the plaintiff company for availing the service of the plaintiff, which was in the line of security services and terms and conditions were settled in the transaction entered between the parties. It is claimed on behalf of the plaintiff company that terms and condition were settled at the regional office of the plaintiff company, but the agreement executed at Bangalore for the reasons that defendant company insisted that AR of the defendant company was at Bangalore at relevant time. Plaintiff has also claimed that later on one agreement was also signed between the parties at Delhi. The agreement dated 03.06.05 was of Pan India level CS No. 12/11 M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. 1/5 covering the entire outlets of defendant company including outlets at Mahipal Pur, National Highway8, New Delhi, outlets at Rangpuri, National Highway8, New Delhi, also showroom at Greater Kailash, New Delhi, Kingsway Camp, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and at Sector14, Gurgaon. The plaintiff company has claimed as per account maintained by the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company is entitled to an amount of Rs. 15,86,179/ payable by the defendant for the services provided by the plaintiff company at different locations.
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant and suit was contested inter alia on the ground that Delhi courts has no jurisdiction. It was claimed on behalf of defendant company that defendant company was not having any regional office in Delhi, which is being claimed on behalf of plaintiff company and the entire cause of action has taken place at Bangalore. Defendant company has also claimed that all the payments as per the invoices and the services provided by the plaintiff company, has been made by the plaintiff company and nothing was due.
3. In the light of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of recovery, as CS No. 12/11 M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. 2/5 prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? (OPD)
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ?
(OPD)
4. Relief.
4. Affidavit of one witness in evidence of the plaintiff filed, which is PW1 Sh. Ashok Ghai, AR of the plaintiff company. Proceedings were directed to be taken exparte against the defendant vide order dated 10.10.2012 as none appeared for the defendant on that date.
5. Exparte arguments were heard on behalf of the plaintiff company.
Issue wise finding is not given as there was no evidence adduced by defendant company.
6. Despite the fact that defendant has chosen not to participate in the proceedings, there is an issue as regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court in view of the facts testified by the plaintiff in the affidavit of evidence and also pleadings of the parties. It is the admitted case of both the parties that agreement dated 03.06.05 was signed by the parties at Bangalore, Karnataka. PW1 in the affidavit of CS No. 12/11 M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. 3/5 evidence filed claimed that one agreement was also signed between the parties at New Delhi after the change in the names of both the plaintiff company and defendant company. However, said agreement has not been placed on record. Invoices issued, have not been placed on record and the amount being claimed on the basis of the statement of account, related to the services provided by the plaintiff company to the defendant company throughout India and is not restricted to the outlets in the area of Delhi of defendant company.
7. It has been claimed by PW1 in his affidavit of evidence that defendant company is having its regional office at New Delhi at Village Rang Puri, New Delhi. However, as per the documents placed on record there had been no dealing of the plaintiff with the defendant company, but it has regional office in New Delhi. Notice terminating the agreement issued by the plaintiff company, which has been proved as Ex. PW1/3, was sent to the defendant company's address at Bangalore. Similarly, a legal notice dated 12th May, 2008 Ex. PW1/6 was also issued to the defendant company at its Bangalore office. Another legal notice dated 30.06.09 was also issued to the defendant company at Bangalore office. As per the deployment form 'A' placed on record by the plaintiff company, the deployment of the security officials provided by the CS No. 12/11 M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. 4/5 plaintiff company, were at Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and Gurgaon. Since defendant company was not having any subordinate office, so called, the regional office at Delhi, defendant company shall be deemed to carry on business only at its sole or principal office in India, which is in Bangalore and defendant company shall be deemed to be actually voluntarily residing or carrying on business only at Bangalore, Karnataka as per Section 20 (a) CPC. Since no details of the claim being made as regards the deployment done by the plaintiff company at Delhi outlets were given, it cannot be held that cause of action had arisen in Delhi wholly or partly in regard to the claim filed by the plaintiff company, which is a composite statement of account, being relied upon by the plaintiff for the services provided at different locations at Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and Gurgaon pursuant to agreement dated 03.06.05, which was signed at Bangalore. As such, Delhi Courts have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff company and the plaint in the facts and circumstances is directed to be returned the plaintiff company U/o. 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Announced on 14.12. 2012 (J.P.S Malik)
ADJ04: South District
New Delhi
CS No. 12/11 M/s. Peregrine Guarding (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Primus Retail Pvt. Ltd. 5/5