Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Unissi India Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Highway Construction Co. & Ors on 22 April, 2024
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Amit Bansal
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2024
M/S UNISSI INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Vikas Tomar, Adv.
versus
M/S HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 22.04.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.22855/2024
1. Allowed, subject to the appellant filing legible copies of the annexures, at least three (03) days before the next date of hearing. FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2024
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Via the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, "CPC"].
4. In effect, the learned Single Judge concluded that the said action had been filed in the court which did not have jurisdiction. At the heart of the reasoning furnished in the impugned judgment are the following:
FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2024 1/3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/05/2024 at 22:15:49
(i) That the subject purchase order dated 08.06.2021 was stamped and issued by the respondents/defendants from an office located in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
(ii) The said purchase order also alluded to the fact that the registered office of the respondents/defendants was situated in Allahabad with a branch office in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
(iii) The said purchase order bore the Delhi address of the appellant/plaintiff. The subject purchase order required the appellant/plaintiff to supply and erect PSA-based oxygen generator plants. 16 PSA-based oxygen generator plants were required to be erected in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
5. Taking the aforesaid aspects into account and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163 into consideration, the learned Single Judge concluded that since the contract had to be performed where it was made, the suit could be filed at no other place, except where it was made and had to be performed.
6. Mr Vikas Tomar, who appears on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, says that apart from anything else, concededly, payments had to be made in Delhi.
6.1 Mr Tomar points out that part payments, including advance towards execution of the subject contract, were made in Delhi.
7. Prima facie, we are of the view that when a suit action is filed based on a contract, one of the following three tests should be met for determining whether the cause of action falls within the jurisdiction of a Court:
FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2024 2/3This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/05/2024 at 22:15:49
(i) First, the place where the contact is made i.e, the offer is accepted;
(ii) Second, the place where the contract is required to be performed; and
(iii) Lastly, the place where the payment is to be made.
8. Since according to the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the payments were made in Delhi, there is something to be said in the matter. 8.1 Issue notice to the respondents/defendants via all permissible modes, including email.
9. List the matter on 12.07.2024.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 22, 2024/pmc Click here to check corrigendum, if any FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2024 3/3 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/05/2024 at 22:15:49