GOLDEN PEAKOCK OVERSEAS LIMITED Vs. RANJIT INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.20,80,568.53 and for injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in any manner or exporting any goods to the overseas buyers of the plaintiff.

(2.) As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is a 100% export oriented company having its works at Noida Export Processing Zone and it claims to be a highly specialised research and development cell, which works continuously to improve the existing and developing new products to cater to the quality conscious international markets. According to them their goods are universally accepted in United Kingdom, Europe, South Africa, Taiwan, Hongkong, China, Australia and U.S.A. etc. The plaintiff is also an ISO 9001 : 2000 registered company. According to the plaintiff it was dealing with the defendants for the last over 15 years and claims that the defendants have been virtually set up and developed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to procure the products from the defendants and dealt with its overseas customers. They lastly supplied the goods together in September'03. It is averred that in October'03, the defendants in violation of the undertaking contained in their letter dated 2nd April, 2003 started dealing with the foreign buyers of the plaintiff and made supplies after luring them over by offering lower prices, while promising the same products as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could only know about two such export orders and submits that the defendants needs to render the accounts in that regard. The defendants had then agreed to pay to the plaintiff, 60% of the value of exports done by them and they claim an amount of Rs.4,80,568.35p on account of such price and Rs.15,96,013.53 on account of damages. The plaintiff also claims interest thereupon and the relief of injunction.

(3.) The defendants have filed their written statement contesting the suit, besides challenging the claim of the plaintiff on merits and giving its own version in relation to the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of money. The defendants have taken a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the suit on the plea that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit as no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. The defendants filed an application being IA No. 7437/2005 under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for returning of the plaint for its presentation in the court of competent jurisdiction. The main plea of the defendants is that the defendants have been carrying on the business with the plaintiff for the last 20 years and are manufacturing brass parts and supplying the same to the plaintiff. The invoices generated between the parties were initiated at Jamnagar. Goods were delivered to the plaintiff at their Noida Workshop/factory and in terms of the printed conditions on the invoices, the Courts at Jamnagar alone would have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the disputes. Further, it is stated that all the transactions between the parties either took place between the parties at Jamnagar or at Noida, U.P. Neither any transaction nor any dealings were done by the parties in relation to the disputes raised in the present suit, at New Delhi. It is also stated that the letter dated 2nd April, 2003 is a forged letter and does not bear the signatures of defendant no.2. Plaintiff while praying for dismissal of this application submitted that in terms of the letter dated 2nd April, 2003, the defendants had agreed that the courts at Delhi alone will have the jurisdiction and furthermore that some correspondence had taken place between the parties at Delhi; and the plaintiff has its registered office at Delhi and as such on the true construction of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court would have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit and in support of this submission, the plaintiff has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Raunaq Int. Ltd. vs. Mini Sea Foods 1983 Rajdhani Law Reporter 202.