RANBAXY FINE CHEMICALS LTD Vs. NATIONAL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs.26,72,179.84 ps. against the defendant. The suit is founded on the averments that the defendant was appointed as a stockist of the plaintiff company for the purpose of selling laboratory chemicals in Bhilai Nagar, Chattisgarh, manufactured by the plaintiff company. An agreement to this effect was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant on 27th May 1998 and subsequently the said agreement was renewed on 22nd September 1999. The plaintiff company supplied the chemicals to the defendant from its godown situated at Bhiwandi, Maharashtra during the period June 1999 to July 1999 under separate invoices. The total value of these supplies was 27,05,129.63 pc. On account of the various supplies made by the plaintiff and part payments made by the defendant, an amount of Rs.19,07,371.84 pc. remained as balance. As this amount was not paid inspite of repeated requests and notice, suit for recovery is filed after adding interest @ 21% per annum and thereby making a total of Rs.26,72,179.84 pc.

(2.) The defendant has filed present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The case put by the defendant is that as per the averments made in the plaint itself, it is not shown that any cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked only because of clause 17 of the agreement dated 27th May 1998 which stipulates that the Courts at Delhi alone shall have the jurisdiction. The submission of the defendant is that when this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be clothed because of the aforesaid clause as even the consent of the parties cannot confer the jurisdiction on a Court which otherwise does not have the jurisdiction. From the averments made in the plaint learned counsel further submitted that nowhere it is mentioned that even a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the view that there is force in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the defendant and prayer made in this application deserves to be allowed.