STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAIN TUBE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 3.7.2001 which has decreed the suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,00458.75 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. One of the issues which was framed in the suit being issue No. 1 pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. This issue has been dealt with by the trial Court in the following manner:

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued that the trial Court has clearly erred in deciding this issue by holding that the Courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the clause clearly provides for jurisdiction of the Courts in Rajasthan "and not elsewhere". Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A. P. Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR(SC) 1239 and R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., 1993 2 SCC 130 to argue that once there is an expression of "and not elsewhere" the exclusive jurisdiction will vest with the Courts at Rajasthan and not at Delhi. It is argued that tender was sent to the Plaintiff from Jodhpur and accordingly contract is concluded at Jodhpur in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwandas Goverdhandas Kedia v. Girdharilal Parshottamdas and Co., 1966 AIR(SC) 543.

(3.) I find that the argument as raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants has force. In view of the agreed Clause 25, the Courts at Delhi would have no territorial jurisdiction. The suit therefore could not have been instituted at Delhi and had to be filed in the competent Courts at Jodhpur where the contract was concluded, and in fact where it was also performed. I may note that supply in terms of the supply order was to be made at store yard of the Appellants at Jodhpur as per Clause 1 of the acceptance of tender.