BOSTON SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL B V Vs. METRO HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed on behalf of the defendant under order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

(2.) Before the question of territorial jurisdiction is examined, it would be necessary to set out the nature of the suit and the averments made in the plaint. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,38,479.40 along with interest @ 18% per annum from the defendant. The plaintiff is a foreign company incorporated in the Netherlands and has a branch office at 100A, The Capital Court, Olof Palme Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. As stated in the plaint, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of medical care equipments to various institutions and hospitals worldwide. The defendant, on the other hand, is a company which runs a private hospital engaged in providing medical care. The plaintiff has been supplying medical equipments to the defendant for this purpose. It is stated in the plaint that the parties have been doing business with each other since October, 1998 and the modus operandi of the business is that the defendant used to place orders on the plaintiff for various medical equipments and that the plaintiff, on receipt of such orders, used to issue invoices upon the defendant and deliver ordered equipments against a receipt. The price of the equipment as quoted in the invoice was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. For this purpose, the parties maintained a running account between themselves and the defendant used to make on account payments which were accepted by the plaintiff from time to time. As per the plaint, the total value of the material supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant throughout the course of their business transactions came to about Rs.3,54,799.32 in respect of the materials supplies through the Meadox Division and Rs.69,65,380.75 through the Scimed Division of the plaintiff. The total receipts against such supplies amounted to Rs.1,48,279.66 and Rs.43,92,064.01 in respect of the supplies from the said Meadox and Scimed Divisions respectively. According to the plaintiff, this left a debit balance of Rs.2,06,519.66 and Rs.25,73,316.74 in respect of the Meadox and Scimed Division supplies respectively. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the total debit balance in the book of accounts of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the defendant was Rs.27,79,839.40 which was outstanding against the defendant and which the defendant was liable to pay along with interest @ 18% per annum as per the market trade and usage. Paragraph 11 of the plaint reveals that a legal notice dated 02.06.2001 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant whereby the defendant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.34,88,695.00 as was due on that date along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of notice till realisation. The said amount was obviously not paid by the defendant and, therefore, the present suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been instituted by the plaintiff. Paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as under:-

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the contents of paragraph 17 of the plaint are vague. The learned counsel for the defendant with reference to the contents of the present application (IA NO 193/2005) as also the written statement filed by it, submitted that the entire cause of action arose at NOIDA which falls within Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, this court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. As regards the averments made in paragraph 17 of the plaint, it is stated in the written statement that the averments are wrong and denied. It is further stated that the defendant has its hospital as well as its subordinate office at NOIDA. All the equipments were received at NOIDA. The equipments were utilised at NOIDA and all the payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff at NOIDA. The defendant's bankers were at NOIDA. All the payments were received by the plaintiff and its representatives from the defendant at NOIDA. It was also noted that the mere existence of the registered office of the defendant at Delhi also did not give the Delhi courts any jurisdiction in this matter. It is further contended that the plaintiff had made a wrong averment regarding payments received by the plaintiff in Delhi and that this was a sham and incorrect averment just to make out a case for the maintainability of the suit qua the territorial jurisdiction objection. Accordingly, it was stated that all the payments were received by the plaintiff from the defendant at NOIDA in the hospital of the defendant at NOIDA and, therefore, only the courts at NOIDA, District-Gautambuddh Nagar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It was, therefore, contended that the plaint be returned under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the CPC.