Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in M/S Bahubali Steel Industries vs Sappers Koshico Pumps (India) Pvt. Ltd on 14 January, 2020Matching Fragments
7. It is stated that the requests were made to the defendant to make the payment but the defendants refused and neglected to pay the same. In the circumstances, there was a legal notice sent to the defendant dated 25.01.2018 demanding the said amount of Rs.5,00,185/ along with interest. The said legal notice was duly served on the defendant on 25.01.2018.
Case of the defendant
8. In the Written Statement filed, the defendant has taken the stand that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The registered office of the plaintiff is situated in Mumbai and the registered office of defendant is located in Sonepat (Haryana). The orders were placed by the defendant at the registered office of the plaintiff in Mumbai. The defendant does not CS No. 771 of 18 M/s Bahubali Steel Inds. vs. Sappers Koshico Pumps India P. Ltd. 4 of 45 have any branch office in the jurisdiction of this court. Further no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court to file the present suit.
CS No. 771 of 18 M/s Bahubali Steel Inds. vs. Sappers Koshico Pumps India P. Ltd. 7 of 45
17. This witness also deposed about a legal notice being sent to the defendants and the defendants still not making the payment to the plaintiff. He had referred to in his affidavit the legal notice dated 25.01.2018 Ex.PW1/19, postal and courier receipts Ex.PW1/20 to Ex.PW1/23, acknowledgment card Ex.PW1/24 and also the postal cover returned ExPW1/25 which had been sent at the first address of the defendant i.e. of 235, Phase IV, HSIIDC, Kundli, Distt Sonepat, Haryana.
Ans. It is though correct that there is such a term written on the invoices but according to the legal opinion received this Court also has the jurisdiction to try this suit. It is, however, correct to say that, the orders were placed in Mumbai by the defendant company and not in Delhi."
37. Let us look at what the witness of the defendant has deposed on this aspect of the matter. He had stated in the affidavit filed in the examinationinchief. "I say that this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present matter. The registered office of the Plaintiff is situated in Mumbai. Further, registered office of the Answering Defendant is situated in Sonipat (Haryana). Orders were placed by the defendant from Sonepat on the registered office of the Plaintiff i.e. Mumbai. CS No. 771 of 18 M/s Bahubali Steel Inds. vs. Sappers Koshico Pumps India P. Ltd. 19 of 45 Answering Defendant do not any branch within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Partner of the Plaintiff firm himself admitted during the crossexamination that Defendant had placed all orders to him in Mumbai."
"It is correct that I have not stated this fact in the written statement. It is correct that the goods referred to in the said invoices had been transported through the defendant company through the transporter Delhi Sonepat Goods Transport Company.
(At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has brought to the attention of the witness the transport receipts 8 in numbers forming part of Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/14 at pages no. 25, 27,29,31,33,35,37,39 and 41). It is correct that the goods had been supplied by the said transporter vide the said eight goods receipts. We used to issue CForms to the plaintiff firm as is statutorily required.