PANKAJ VERMA Vs. BRANDHOUSE RETAILS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs. 28,21,629/ -. Issues were framed on 17.04.2012. The defendant was proceeded ex parte on 18.02.2015 and its counter claim bearing No. 96/2010 was dismissed for non -prosecution. Accordingly, issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, where the onus of proof is on the defendant, are irrelevant and can be disregarded. Since Issue No. 2 is with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court, it is being dealt with first. Issue No. 2: Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPP

(2.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff relies upon Section 20(c) of the CPC to contend that since a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. He further submits that the plaintiff is a resident of Delhi and the Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as 'MoU'), admitted and proved as Ex. P/2, entered into between the parties was also executed in Delhi. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, : (1989) 2 SCC 163 which reads as under: -

(3.) HE further draws the attention of this Court to clause (38) of the MoU which reads as under: -