LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-409

BATA INDIA LIMITED Vs. VITAFLEX MAUCH GMBH

Decided On February 13, 2008
BATA INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
Vitaflex Mauch Gmbh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application is preferred by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ' CPC') stating inter alia that the plaint of the plaintiff may be returned for being presented to the appropriate Court as this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit instituted by the plaintiff.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit against the defendant for restraining the defendant from issuing threats of legal proceedings to the plaintiff in terms of their legal notice dated 3rd April, 2006, as also for a declaration that the threats extended by the defendant to plaintiff are unjustified and the plaintiff is not infringing the legal rights of the defendant as alleged in its notice. Apart from the above, the plaintiff has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs from the defendant for extending unjustifiable threats to it.

(3.) IT was contended by the Counsel for the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit and that tire admitted position of facts between the parties is that the plaintiff is a company having its registered office at Kolkata and the defendant is residing and carrying on its business in Germany. It was further argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the defendant was carrying on its business partly or otherwise within the territory of this Court and that the legal notice issued by the defendant, on the basis of which the suit has been instituted by the plaintiff was also received by the plaintiff at a place, outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his contention that this Court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on mull Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Girdhari Lal Gupta v. M/s K. Gian Chand Jain & Co., reported as AIR 1978 Delhi 146.