Somya Salwan vs M/S Neesa Leisure Limited

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.9.2016

by which the trial court has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff by holding that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction. Trial court has

held that jurisdiction will be of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat because of existence of such a jurisdictional clause in the two subject purchase

orders placed upon the appellant/plaintiff by the respondent/defendant.

The facts of the case are that with respect to the interior works of the respondent/defendant to be done at two premises in Delhi, the

respondent/defendant placed two purchase orders upon the appellant/plaintiff. The two Purchase Orders are dated 19.8.2008 and which have been

proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3. Both these purchase orders placed by the respondent/defendant upon the appellant/plaintiff

contained a clause that the territorial jurisdiction will be of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat.

Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that no doubt the purchase orders mention jurisdiction of the courts at Gandhinagar in Gujarat,

however it is argued that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a court which does not have jurisdiction otherwise. It is argued that courts at

Gujarat did not have jurisdiction because whole or part of cause of action has not accrued at Gandhinagar in Gujarat. Reliance in this regard has been

placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163

and which holds that essentially four courts will have jurisdiction i.e either where the contract is executed or where the contract is to be performed or

where the payment under the contract has to be made or where the defendant resides. Â

4(i) It is then argued on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that the only issue with respect to execution of the contract is that neither parties of the

contract reside at Gandhinagar in Gujarat nor payment is to be made in Gandhinagar in Gujarat and nor the appellant/plaintiff is residing or working for

gain at Gandhinagar in Gujarat. As regards the fourth aspect of entering into the contract, it is rightly argued by the appellant/plaintiff that the

Purchase Orders dated 19.8.2008 proved as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 are in the nature of offer letters and these offer letters have been addressed to

the appellant/plaintiff at New Delhi and therefore the acceptance by the appellant/plaintiff will be at New Delhi, and it is the place where acceptance

is given is the place ie. Delhi where the contract is finalized as having been entered into. Â

(ii) I agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff inasmuch as parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on the court which

has none inasmuch as neither the contract is executed at Gandhinagar in Gujarat nor is the same to be performed at Gandhinagar in Gujarat nor any

payment is to be made to the respondent/defendant at Gandhinagar in Gujarat and nor is the appellant/plaintiff residing or working for gain at

Gandhinagar in Gujarat. As already stated above, the Purchase Orders dated 19.8.2008 Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 are in the nature of offers, and

which have been accepted by the respondent/defendant at Delhi as the purchase orders have been addressed to the appellant/plaintiff at 114, Jor

Bagh, New Delhi.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.9.2016 is set aside. It is held that the

trial court had territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. Since evidence in the suit is already led by both the parties, now the trial court will decide the

other issues framed in the suit in accordance with law. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the appellant/plaintiff

and against the respondent/defendant. Costs will be paid to the appellant/plaintiff before the trial court at the stage of final arguments.

Parties to appear before the District and Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 30.8.2018 and the District and Sessions Judge

will now mark the suit for disposal to a competent court in accordance with law.