CAPRIHANS INDIA LIMITED Vs. R T PACKAGING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 thereof for return of the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. This prayer has been made on the basis of clause No.13 which forms part of the Purchase Orders under which the plaintiff is said to have supplied the goods to the defendant. The said clause 13 reads as under:- 13. All contracts and orders are deemed to be entered into at Faridabad and in case of any dispute or difference, the court at Faridabad alone has jurisdiction. (Underlining added)

(2.) The learned counsel for the defendant / applicant has drawn my attention to various paragraphs of the plaint to indicate that upon a reading of the plaint itself and the documents filed alongwith the plaint, it would become clear that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in terms of the said clause 13. He pointed out that in paragraph 5 the plaintiff has stated that the defendant company approached the plaintiff for supply of goods (Micron Rigid PVC clear Film, etc.) and the defendant company by Purchase Order Nos. RTPL/I/DHR/097 dated 13.11.2000, RTPL/I/DHR/119 dated 20.12.2000, RTPL/I/DHR/137 dated 06.02.2001, RTPL/I/DHR/154 dated 16.03.2001, RTPL/I/DHR/155 dated 16.03.2001, RTPL/I/DHR/276 dated 22.10.2001 placed the orders with the plaintiff company for the supply of the said goods on credit basis. The purchase orders are annexed with the plaint as Annexures A-1 to A-6. Paragraph 6 of the plaint discloses that the plaintiff supplied the goods to the defendant on credit basis under various invoices / bills as detailed therein against the said purchase orders. Paragraph 6 of the plaint also contains the statement that the defendant company had duly acknowledged the receipt of the goods supplied by the plaintiff and copies of the delivery challans / invoices of the plaintiff company were also annexed to the plaint as Annexures A-7 to A-14. Thereafter, the plaint discloses averments to the effect that the plaintiff company on various occasions called upon the defendant orally as well as by written correspondence for making the payment of the outstanding principal amount of Rs.26,79,720/- alongwith interest thereon in respect of the goods said to have been supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant in terms of the said purchase orders. But, the defendant failed to do so. This, in effect, is the entirety of the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the defendant / applicant drew my attention to one of the purchase orders and in particular to Annexure-6 which is at page 7 of the documents file. The said purchase order clearly indicates the materials / goods that were required to be supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant. The said purchase order comprises of the details of the goods sought to be purchased by the defendant. The reverse of the purchase order contains the terms and conditions of the order. On the front page, it is indicated:- Please supply the following subject to terms and conditions mentioned on the order and general terms and conditions mentioned overleaf. The printing overleaf is headed as TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDER and clause 13 of these terms and conditions is what has been reproduced earlier and which forms the subject matter of the present application. The learned counsel for the applicant states that both Delhi and Faridabad would normally have had jurisdiction to entertain this suit. However, because of the specific ouster contained in the said clause 13, only the courts at Faridabad would have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. A.P. Agencies, Salem: (1989) 2 SCC 163. He also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court which has been reported in the form of short notes in 17 (1980) DLT 531 (S.N.) entitled as Mohanwi Corporation (P) Ltd v. D.N. Sinha and Another to show that the objection as regards the place of suing should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. He also referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr: 2005 VIII AD SC 226 for the same proposition. In particular he referred to paragraph 30 of the said decision which reads as under:- 30. We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity. The aforesaid paragraph was referred to by the learned counsel for the defendant / applicant for submitting that the question of jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest and it is because of this that he has filed this application under Order VII Rule 10 for return of the plaint as this court does not have jurisdiction and the same should be returned to the plaintiff to be instituted in the appropriate court, i.e., the courts at Faridabad.