AGROHA & ANR. Vs. M/S. KLJ POLLYALLOYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2012 whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, filed by the petitioner, who were defendants in the suit, was dismissed.

(2.) The respondents had filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery under Order 37 CPC. The petitioners herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC opposing the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts stating that no cause of action arose at Delhi. It was their case that the cause of action arose at Nasik and that only the Courts at Nasik would have jurisdiction. In response, the plea of the respondents was that the part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi inasmuch as the respondents were approached by the petitioners at Delhi office and they had also placed purchase order at Delhi. It was also their case that part payments were also made at Delhi in discharge of liabilities. It was further their case that there was a jurisdiction clause in the invoices which provide that all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction. Based on all this, it was submitted that Delhi Courts had jurisdiction.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. The learned ADJ has observed that a part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi inasmuch as part payments were made at Delhi and further that there was a jurisdiction clause in the invoices mentioning "all disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction". The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no part of cause of action took place at Delhi and thus Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction. The learned ADJ placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Startech Enggcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bundelkhand University, 2008 147 DLT 276 wherein it was held as under: