M/S Swastik Gases Pvt Ltd vs Indian Oil Corp Ltd on 13 October, 2011
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the
impugned order as well as the record. I do not find that there is
anything illegal, improper or there is any jurisdictional error in
the impugned order wherein the issue that the Delhi Court has
the jurisdiction has been decided in favour of
respondent/plaintiff. The reason for this is that a perusal of the
tax invoice will clearly show that although it has been
specifically mentioned that the dispute, if any, between the seller
and purchaser would be subject to the jurisdiction of court at
seller's place however, it is clearly laid down in Section 20 CPC
that the jurisdiction for instituting a suit would lie at a place
where the defendant resides, works for gain or where the cause
of action either wholly or partly has arisen. As the seller is the
supplier of RMC at Delhi, therefore, Delhi court has been rightly
CRP 145/2015 Page 4 of 5
held to be having the jurisdiction since cause of action arises in
Delhi.