CAPTAIN KERSY RATONSHA DRIVER Vs. NEPC INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal encompasses a short point. Question raised is on the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts. Impugned order had returned a finding that under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Code?) Delhi Courts would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff (M/s NEPC India Ltd.) has filed a suit for damages claiming a sum of Rs. 50 lacs alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff on account of the illegal grounding of its aircraft pursuant to an order passed by the Bombay High Court on 25.08.2008 which was at the behest of the defendant. The averments in the plaint disclose that this order was obtained by the defendant by concealing material facts and furnishing false information on oath that the aircraft belongs to M/s Skyline NEPC Limited. Submission being that this aircraft is in no manner connected with M/s Skyline NEPC Ltd and it in fact belongs to M/s NEPC Airlines. This order of attachment was obtained by the defendant under a fraud. As a result of this attachment order the aircraft was grounded which has caused undue hardship and a resultant loss to the plaintiff company. Accordingly, the aforenoted suit was filed.

(3.) In the written statement, a preliminary objection was taken about the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts; submission was that the Bombay Courts would alone have the jurisdiction as the entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Bombay Courts; the defendant being a resident of Bombay and merely because the aircraft stood grounded in Delhi (Indira Gandhi International Airport) would not by itself confer jurisdiction upon the Delhi courts.