Delhi District Court
And Place Of Business At vs Farm2Plate Dairy Produce Pvt. Ltd on 31 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRIYA AGRAWAL, CIVIL JUDGE,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Shriya Agrawal, DJS
CS No. 52322/16
M/s Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
(Through Samdarshi Lama-Senior
Manager Legal (India) & Company
Secretary-Authorized Representative)
Having its Registered Office at
DLF Building No.5, Tower B,
10th floor, DLF Cyber Terraces,
Phase-III, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002
And Place of business at:-
122/8/3, Ansal Palam Vihar,
Near MCD Toll, Bijwasan,
New Delhi
.....Plaintiff
Vs
Farm2plate Dairy Produce Pvt. Ltd.
(Previously M/s ABInbev India Pvt. Ltd.)
(Through its Managing Director/directors)
Registered Office:-
F-2/7, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase-1, New Delhi-110020
Shahi Foods
(Through its Proprietor/Partner/MD/Director)
Address:- No.560-562, 5th Floor,
Centuary Plaza, Opposite DMS,
Tynampet, Chennai-600018 (Tamil Naidu)
Also at:-
Shahi Foods
Office at: G.S, Asha Vijay Apartments,
D-22 & E-23, Samandhi Street,
Brindavan Nagar, Koyambedar
Chennai-600092
Also at:- Shahi Foods
Office at: 16, K.R.C Nagar,
Uthukottai Post & Taluk,
Tirnvallur, District-602026
.....Defendants
Date of institution of Suit : 01.07.2016
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 02.08.2018
CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 1 of 12
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 31.08.2018
Judgment
1.The present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendants viz. Farm2plate Dairy Produce Pvt Ltd (Defendant no.1) and Shahi Foods (Defendant no.2) for recovery of Rs. 1,48,293.75 along with interest.
Case of the Plaintiff as per the averments in the Plaint
2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case, as per the Plaint are that the Plaintiff company is a reputed freight forwarding agency incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956 and Multi Model Transport Operators Rules 1992 and Multi Modal Transportation of Goods Act,1993 vide registration no. MTO/DGS/297/OCT/2017 and is engaged in the business of facilitating and providing freight forwarding logistics and allied services to its customers. The Present suit was instituted by the Senior Manager Legal (India) and Company Secretary , authorized by resolution dated 26.2.2014. Defendant no.1 is described as a company engaged in the business of manufacture, import, export and supply of brewing products. The Plaintiff facilitated and provided freight forwarding logistics and allied services to defendant n.1. Defendant no.1 availed of the commercial services of the Plaintiff for the purpose of its business by making import movement of consignment through the Plaintiff vide bill of lading no. HAMS13024926 dated 12th May 2013 from the place of loading at Hamburg, Germany to the place of delivery at Chennai, India vide bill of lading no. HAMS13019589 dated 24th May 2013 from the place of loading at Hamburg, till the place of delivery at Chennai. As per the agreed terms of transportation, the Defendant no.1 was to make payment of invoices against the handing over of the documents by the Plaintiff at the destination port in Chennai. Defendant no.1 sold it to Defendant no.2 and sent a communication to the Plaintiff to collect the payments for the services from Defendant no.2. Plaintiff is stated to have objected to the transfer of the payment obligation to an unknown entity i.e. Defendant no.2, to whom the Plaintiff never rendered any services. Defendant no.1 has refused to accept its liability for the payment for the services performed by Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff being at the mercy of Defendant no.1 for the payment is left with no other option, but to handover the delivery of the goods to Defendant no.2 and to approach Defendant no.2 to collect its payments for the services performed and provided to Defendant no.1.
CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 2 of 123. The Plaintiff raised two invoices viz. invoice no. GIN00040700 for Rs. 74,214.25 dated 12th June 2013 and Invoice no. GIN00041008 for Rs. 74,079.50 dated 14 th June 2013. The total amount due is Rs. 1,48,293.75, payable by Defendant no.1 on credit privilege of 30 days period, allowed by the Plaintiff against the undertaking by Defendant no.1 to release all the invoice payments by or before the expiry of credit period and subject to their confirmation on terms and conditions of the credit letter. The Plaintiff claims to have issued multiple reminders/ emails and telephonic reminders to Defendant no.1 and Defendant no.2 for collection of payment against the abovementioned invoices. It is specifically averred in paragraph no. 10 of the Plaint that it was Defendant no.1 that had availed the services of the Plaintiff and therefore, it is Defendant no.1 that is legally bound to make the payment for the outstanding invoices with overdue interest. Both Defendant no.1 and its nominated buyer i.e. Defendant no.2 have failed to make the payment for the outstanding invoices. The final reminder was issued by way of email dated 30.3.2016 to Defendant no.1. In paragraph no. 15 of the Plaint, it is stated that Defendant no.1 is primarily under liability to make the payment for the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 1,48,293.75 along with interest @ 18 % p.a, pendente lite and future. Hence the present suit for recovery. Case of the Defendant no.1 as per its Written Statement
4. Per contra, Defendant no.1 has stated that the claim of the Plaintiff against Defendant no.1 is devoid of merits as upon the execution of the High Seas Sales Agreement by Defendant with Defendant no.2 and subsequent to the endorsement of the bill of lading by Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2, all the payments with respect to the freight charges and other related charges with respect to the consignment were payable and recoverable from Defendant no.2, the ultimate buyer and beneficiary, in view of the INCOTERM 2010, applicable to the transaction in question. Defendant has no liability qua the Plaintiff as the shipment in question was 'free on board' (FOB) and as per the established norms, freight charges were to be collected by the Plaintiff from Defendant no.2, being the subsequent consignee by virtue of the High Seas Sales Agreement, at the destination mentioned in the bill of lading. The freight liability, clearly, as can be ascertained from the emails exchanged, is that of Defendant no.2. Filing of the present suit by the Plaintiff against Defendant no.1 is only an after-thought.
5. Reference is made to an email dated 15 th April 2014 from Defendant no.2 to the Plaintiff, wherein it is mentioned that the payment be released to Geodis after CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 3 of 12 deducting the charges. The net payable amount towards the freight charges is mentioned as Rs. 54,764/-. Defendant no.1 was not made a party to this exchange and therefore has nothing to do with the freight. The Plaintiff further addressed another email dated 12th June 2014, requesting the Defendant no.2 to make the full payment of Rs. 54,000 (54k) immediately (immdly). Likewise, the Defendant no.1 has no concern with this email as well. Again vide email dated 14.7.2014, addressed by Defendant no.2 to the Plaintiff, it is confirmed that after some discussion inter-se the Defendant no.2 and the Plaintiff, the freight amount stood reduced to Rs. 46,786/-. It is additionally stated that the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit also does not lie with this court as no transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of this court. The consignment was sent to Defendant no. 2 on 'free on board freight collect' basis, as is apparent from the terms of the bill of lading and the tax invoices filed by the Plaintiff. Moreover the present suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as the liability subsists of Defendant no.2 alone. Even otherwise, the suit is time barred, as the goods were sold to Defendant no.2 by Defendant no.1 in transit on the basis of High Seas Sales on 30 th May 2013 and 10th June 2013, with due intimation to the Plaintiff.
6. It is stated that one company by the name of Anheuser Busch Inbev Deutschland CMBH & co. had availed of the services of Plaintiff company to ship certain goods to its the joint venture company known by the name of Abhinav India Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant no.1 herein), which joint venture stood terminated in February 2015 and the name of the company changed to Farm2plate Dairy products Pvt. Ltd. The goods were shipped on the basis of two separate consignments under the bill of lading no. HAMS13018926 and HAMS13019589. The bill of lading were handed over to Defendant no.1 for obtaining the delivery at the scheduled destination. The shipment of the goods was agreed with the Plaintiff to be on 'free on board' - 'freight collect' basis, according to which the freight charges were to be collected by the Plaintiff from the consignee at the destination, as mentioned in the bill of lading. However, the goods were sold by Defendant no.1 on the basis of High Seas Sales to defendant no.2 vide High Seas Sales Agreement dated 30.5.2013 and 10.6.2013. Accordingly the rights/ title / interest of Defendant in the goods stand relinquished. The High Seas Sales was duly communicated to the Plaintiff vide letter dated 30.5.2013 and 10.6.2013 and it was further requested therein to the Plaintiff to issue the delivery order in favour of the purchaser i.e. Defendant no.2. The factum of High seas sales was also communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs at Chennai vide letter dated 20.5.2013 and CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 4 of 12 10.6.2013. Defendant controls all operations from its office at Gurgaon and upon execution of the High seas Sales Agreement, all the original documents were handed over the High seas to Defendant no.2. The Plaintiff has its branch office at Chennai and the purchaser is also at Chennai. The delivery of the goods was also taken from the Plaintiff by Defendant no.2 at Chennai.
7. Thus, the Plaintiff had reasonable opportunity to ascertain that the ownership in the goods stood transferred in favour of Defendant no.2, upon execution of the High Seas sales agreement and subsequent endorsement of the bill of lading by Defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.2. The Plaintiff cannot claim ignorance that the payments were to be collected from Defendant no.2, since all the documents were filed in the name of Defendant no.2, being the High Sea purchaser and the delivery order was issued by the Plaintiff in the name of Defendant no.2. It is underscored, that the Plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, as even after the delivery of the goods by the Plaintiff to defendant no.2, the negotiations continued between the Plaintiff and defendant no.2 for the freight charges.
8. Inter-alia, objections, the Defendant no.1 has stated that no resolution was passed in favour of the purported authorized representative by the Plaintiff company. As no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, merely because of the registered address of Defendant no.1, the suit would not lie before this court. It is also stated that merely by raising invoices, liability cannot be pegged upon the Defendant. It was obligatory for the Plaintiff to collect the freight charges from Defendant no.2 before delivery of the goods. The title in the goods had already passed onto Defendant no.2 on the high seas.
Averments in the Plaintiff's Replication
9. By replication to the written statement of Defendant no.1, Plaintiff has stated that Defendant is misleading the court, as it was Defendant no.1 that had availed the commercial services of the Plaintiff. As per the terms of transportation, the payment was to be made by Defendant no.1 for the invoices against handing over of the delivery documents by the Plaintiff at the destination port at Chennai. But before the arrival of the cargo, defendant no.1 sold the goods to defendant no.2, sending a communication to the Plaintiff to collect the payment for the services from Defendant no.2. Plaintiff claims to have objected to the transfer of the liability to an unknown party. The written statement is stated to be without the proper authorization. The alleged negotiation inter-se the Plaintiff and Defendant no.2 has been denied. It is however CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 5 of 12 stated that the reduced freight was consented to, on the assurance that the payment would be released in one go. Rest of the averments stand denied.
10. By order dated 5.7.2017 the following issues were framed
(i) Whether the suit merits dismissal on the ground that it has not been instituted by a duly authorized person ? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit cannot be entertained by the court for want of territorial jurisdiction ? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,48,293.75/- ?
OPP If yes, is it a joint and several liability qua both the defendants ? OPP
(v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest , pendent lite and future ?If so, at what rate ? OPP
(vi) Relief.
As despite service, Defendant no.2 did not appear to contest the suit, vide order dated 25.8.2017, the proceedings were set ex-parte against it.
Plaintiff evidence
11. The plaintiff company has examined its AR as PW1, who deposed on the strength of his affidavit Ex PW1/A, who relied upon, inter-alia, the copy of the board resolution (Ex PW1/1), bill of lading dated 12.5.2013 ( EX PW1/2), bill of lading dated 18.5.2013 ( Ex PW1/3), invoice dated 12.6.2013 ( EX PW1/4), invoice dated 14.6.2013 (Ex Pw1/5), print of emails dated 30.3.2016 (Ex PW1/6), print of emails dated 5.5.2016 (EX PW1/7), legal notice (Ex PW1/8) and reply to the legal notice. In his cross examination, Plaintiff has stated that it would be correct to suggest that PW1 does not have any personal knowledge of the transaction in question. He however clarifies that his knowledge is derived from the records. He also stated that he had the board minutes dated 5.3.2010, to show he was duly appointed by the Plaintiff. The witness was carrying loose sheets to show the minutes of the meeting and not a bound volume. He also denied the suggestion that no resolution was passed in his favour on 5.3.2010 or 26.2.2014. He admitted that the transaction in question was a 'free on board transaction'. When asked, if in such a case, the consignee is free to sell the goods under consignment before reaching the destination, the witness PW1 stated that high seas sale is not covered under the FOB terms. He acknowledged that the goods in question stood sold by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no.2 during the transit to CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 of 12 the Chennai port and that it was informed that Defendant no.1 had sold the goods/ consignment to Defendant no. 2 before clearance, though he could not remember the exact date when the same was informed. As per the record, Defendant no.1 instructed the Plaintiff to hand over the bill of lading to Defendant no.2 by making an endorsement at the back of the shipment documents. He could not remember if the Plaintiff company had raised any objection in writing to the delivery of the goods to Defendant no.2 at the instance of Defendant no.1. Since there were instructions from Defendant no.1 for delivery of the goods to Defendant no.2, since the business at the relevant time was being carried on with Defendant no.1, which is why , it is explained by the Plaintiff that no objection was sent in writing by the Plaintiff to Defendant no.1. It would be wrong to suggest that no objection at all was raised. He stated that the freight charges are to be paid at the destination by the consignee under the FOB terms. He states that no demand was raised by the Plaintiff with Defendant no.2 for the freight charges, since there was no privity with the said Defendant. The high seas sales to Defendant no. 2 was only informed by Defendant no.1 to the Plaintiff. In his cross- examination on 23.9.2017, the witness admitted when a suggestion was put to him, that since the goods were sold on high seas to Defendant no.2, it was the said defendant , as the new consignee that was liable to pay to the Plaintiff. When recalled for further cross examination on 1.3.2018, the witness stated that it was correct to say the transaction was on freight collect basis. He also acknowledged that the delivery order was issued by the Chennai office of the Plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that from the date of delivery, the Plaintiff had been asking for its dues from Defendant no.2. It is clarified that it was also asking for the dues from Defendant no.1. As per the records, one e-mail was sent to one Ms. SP Gupta, while rest of the emails were addressed to Defendant no.2. He admitted that an amount of Rs. 54,764/- had been offered by Defendant no.2 to the Plaintiff, which was accepted under a gesture, though the proposal was called off, when the payment was not made. It would be wrong to state that neither at the time of the transaction, nor subsequently did the Plaintiff have any office in Delhi. It was specifically admitted that after the sale of the goods by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no.2, the liability for the freight charges shifted to the new buyer. It is stated on behalf of the Plaintiff that its interest was not secured by Defendant no.1. He also admitted that the bill of lading and other documents were handed over to Defendant no.2 at the port of destination at Chennai and also that it would be correct to state that the entire transaction took place outside Delhi. He also CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 7 of 12 admitted that the factum of the high seas sales was informed by Defendant no.1 to the Plaintiff vide letter dated 30.5.2016 and 10.6.2013, with instructions for delivery of goods to Defendant no.2.
Defendant Evidence
12. Defendant no.1 has examined its AR as DW1, who deposed on the strength of her affidavit EX DW1/A, relying inter-alia, upon the resolution Ex DW1/1, copy of INCOTER 2010, copy of letter dated 30.5.2013 to the plaintiff, letter dated 30.6.2013 to the plaintiff, letters dated 30.5.2013 and 10.6.2013 to the customer authority.
13. In his cross examination, the witness states that the transaction took place prior to his joining the defendant no.1 concern. He deposed on the basis of the records available. He had brought along the original minutes book to show the resolution passed in his favour. The witness stated that there were two consignments dated 12.5.2013 and 18.5.2013, wherein the port of origin was Germany and the port of discharge was Chennai. She could not remember the details of the termination of the Joint venture of Angeuser Busch Inbev Desutchland CMBH & co. There was a high seas sale effected in favour of Defendant no. 2 before the arrival of the consignment , and therefore, the latter was entitled to take the delivery. The two bills of lading were provided to Defendant no.1. However, upon high seas sales getting effected , the originals of the same were endorsed and provided to Defendant no.2 She confirms the intimation of the high seas sales to the Plaintiff by Defendant no.1 on 30.5.2013 and 10.6.2013. The freight charges that were to be collected from defendant no.2 however were not intimated to the Plaintiff. As per the incoterms of shipment, the freight charges were to be collected from the buyer at the destination.
14. Heard the final arguments. Perused the record.
15. The issue wise findings are as under:
(i) Whether the suit merits dismissal on the ground that it has not been instituted by a duly authorized person? OPD.
The Defendant no.1 has questioned the institution of the suit by a person, who has not been duly authorized for the same, urging that no resolution was ever passed in favour of the person posing as an authorized representative of the Plaintiff concern. During his cross examination the witness was carrying loose sheets of the meeting minutes and not a bound volume thereof as required to be maintained under the Companies Act rules. The perusal of the resolution on record Ex Pw1/1, which was CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 8 of 12 objected to, on the mode of proof by the counsel for the Defendant at the time of tendering, reflects that it is certified to be a true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the Plaintiff Company. The witness when asked to show the original minutes had been able to pull out loose sheets and not show the entire minutes book, which is required to be maintained as per the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014. The said rules however, being essentially directory, the suit would not merit dismissal on this ground alone. There has been due representation by the company, since the resolution in favour of the AR has been signed by one of the Directors of the Plaintiff company. The issue stands decided against the Defendant.
(ii) Whether the suit cannot be entertained by the court for want of territorial jurisdiction? OPD As regards the issue raised with respect to want of territorial jurisdiction, from the mere perusal of the memo of parties, it comes through that Defendant no.1 is shown as a company having its registered office at Okhla, while Defendant no.2 is shown to be operating from Chennai. The Plaintiff too has its registered office at Gurgaon (now Gurugram, Haryana). In the plaint in paragraph no. 22, the Plaintiff has stated that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit since Defendant no.1 is carrying on its business for gain within its jurisdiction. As the transaction/ dealing with respect to which the present suit relates, concerning the transit and delivery of consignment from the place of loading I.e. at Hamburg, Germany to the place/ port of delivery at Chennai, it has been further urged that no cause of action has arisen in the jurisdiction of this court.
Section 20 CPC, clause (b) provides that when there are more than one Defendants at the time of the institution of the suit, and one of those is residing, carrying on business or personally working for gain within the jurisdiction of a Court, then either with the leave of the court or upon acquiescence to such institution by the other Defendant, the suit can be lawfully entertained by such Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances herein, the Defendant no.2 has despite service failed to appear and contest the suit. At the most it may be argued that it has, by not contesting the present suit acquiesced impliedly in the entertaining of the present suit by this Court. As there is an issue also framed with respect to the misjoinder of parties, further discussion on this issue would be taken up along with issue no (iii) hereunder.
CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 9 of 12 (iii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPD
(iv) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,48,293.75/- ?
OPP
If yes, is it a joint and several liability qua both the defendants ? OPP
(v) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest , pendent lite and future ?If so, at what rate ? OPP
(vi) Relief.
Issues (iii), (iv) and (v), being intertwined, are being taken up together along with findings on issue no. (ii) for discussion as under :-
16. The Plaintiff has relied in support of its claim upon bills of lading (Ex PW1/2 and Ex PW1/3), which have been admitted by Defendant no.1's Authorized Representative. The perusal of the emails brought on record by the Plaintiff itself ( EX PW1/7 colly) reveal that the Plaintiff had been constantly pursuing its claim for the freight charges with Defendant no.2. and not Defendant no.1. It is noteworthy that the witness PW1 in his cross examination recorded on 23.9.2017 has confirmed, by deposing on the basis of the records, that the consignment in question was indeed sold by Defendant no. 1 to Defendant no.2 during transit to Chennai Port and that the Plaintiff was informed by Defendant no.1 of the same before clearance about the sale in transit. Defendant no.1 instructed the Plaintiff to hand over the bills of lading to Defendant no. 2 by making the necessary endorsement at the back of the shipping documents and the delivery of the goods was also given to Defendant no.2. It has also been admitted by PW1 in the very same cross examination, that since the goods were sold on the high seas by Defendant no. 1 to Defendant no.2, it was the latter that was liable, as the new consignee to make the payment for the freight charges and not Defendant no.1, which were payable under the Incoterms 2010 , on the free on board basis at the port of destination. From the perusal of the cross examination of the same witness recorded it comes through that admittedly there were negotiations taking place inter-se the Plaintiff and Defendant no.2 with respect to the freight charges, which were also offered at a reduced rate to the Plaintiff.
17. He also admits that the bills of lading were handed over to Defendant no.2 at the port of Destination and that the Plaintiff stood duly informed about the sale inter-se the Defendants, by Defendant no.1 through correspondence dated 30.5.2013 (Mark D) and 10.6.2013 (Mark E). These letters have been admitted by the purported AR for the Plaintiff in his statement recorded in the Court on 5.7.2017.
CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 10 of 1218. Accordingly, while on one hand, acknowledging that once the goods were sold to the new consignee by Defendant no.1 that is Defendant no.2, and also pursuing the demand for payment of the freight charges with the latter, so much so, entering negotiations with the said Defendant agreeing for reduced rates, the Plaintiff has not only impleaded Defendant no.1 improperly herein, but has also sought to create jurisdiction of this court, on the basis of the registered place of operations of Defendant no.1.
19. It has been observed in Glyn v. East and West India Dock Co [(1882) 7 App Cas. 591] as relied upon by Calcutta High court in J Ezekeil v. British India Steam Navigation Co. & Anr] that everyone claiming as an assignee under a Bill of Lading must be bound by its terms and by the contract between the supplier of the goods and the ship owner therein expressed.
20. The Plaintiff admittedly has been aware that once the goods stood sold to the new buyer, and also willingly handed over the bills of lading to the Defendant no.2, it was solely the latter's liability to account for the freight charges, if any due. Thus, it is a clear case of misjoinder of parties and since the jurisdiction has been made out to be of this court on the basis of the address of the defendant no.1 alone (that is the party found to have been misjoined in this case), the issue no (ii) and (iii) both stand decided in favour of the Defendant.
21. Even if , for the sake of argument, it is agitated that the relief ought to be granted against Defendant no.2, which is being proceeded against ex-parte, it cannot be ignored that the delivery of the goods was taken at Chennai, booked from Hamburg, Germany and the freight charges were also payable at the port of destination by the consignee/ nominee of the consignee. It stands observed above that Defendant no.1 has been improperly impleaded in the present suit as a Defendant. Thus, when this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as neither the Defendant against whom the relief could have been validly pursued is operating from nor has any part of cause of action arisen within the limits of this district, no relief can be granted even against Defendant no.2, which party has not even appeared to contest the suit.
22. Issue no. (iii) is decided in favour of the Defendant. Accordingly, since the suit must fail on the account of misjoinder of parties and want of territorial jurisdiction, issues (iv) and (v) do not merit any consideration.
23. Suit is accordingly dismissed.
CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 11 of 1224. Decree sheet be prepared.
Digitally signed25. File be consigned to Record Room. by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL Pronounced in the open Court AGRAWAL Date: 2018.09.01 on this 31.08.2018 20:06:24 +0530 (Shriya Agrawal) Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi.
31.08.2018 CS No.52322/16 Geodis Overseas P. Ltd. Vs. Farm2plate Dairy Produce P. Ltd. & Ors. Page 12 of 12