SHAH AUDIO VISION CENTRE Vs. HI TONE ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS in this case were concluded on 23.8.2011 and at which stage, counsel for the appellants sought adjournment to seek instructions if the decretal amount can be paid however concession can be granted with respect to pendente lite and future interest. The case was again listed on 1.9.2011 and one week's more time was sought and granted. Today, however counsel for the appellants states that he has no instructions from the appellants and therefore, the appeal be decided on merits.

(2.) BY means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a challenge is laid to the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001 of the trial court which decreed the suit for recovery of respondent/plaintiff for Rs.1,30,000/- with interest. The suit was decreed on account of failure of the appellants/defendants to pay the price of electronic goods supplied.

(3.) SO far as the argument as to lack of jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi, I find the argument without substance because admittedly, payments by means of bank drafts were made by the appellants/defendants to the respondent/plaintiff at Delhi, I therefore, hold that the trial court rightly held that the courts at Delhi had territorial jurisdiction.