K L SHROFF Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the issues framed on February 2, 1994 was to the following effect: Whether the Court has no territorial jurisdiction? .... OPD Plaintiff was awarded the work of printing of lottery tickets for the period April 1,1985 to March 31,1986 and April 1.1986 to March31,1987 by the defendants. The amount of Rs. 24,53,445/61 P. for recovery whereof suit has been filed represents the balance payment allegedly due to the plaintiffs from the defendants for execution of the said work and the interest @ 18% per annum on the outstanding amount. Para 25 of the plaint which is relevant reads thus :

(2.) Averments made in the preliminary objections and para No. 25 of the written statement alone are material on the issue at hand. By way of preliminary objections it is pleaded that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the seat of the Government of Haryana being at Chandigarh this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. In reply to aforesaid para 25 of the plaint it is alleged in para 25 of the written statement that jurisdiction for settlement of all disputes is at Chandigarh as per the tender conditions.

(3.) Submission advanced by Shri Jasbir Malik appearing for the defendants was that as per Tender Condition No. 24 the suit should have been filed at Chandigarh and this Courthas no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. He did not press the pleas taken by way of preliminary objections in the written statement about the seat of Government of Haryana being at Chandigarh and non-accrual of part of cause of action within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, Ir. support of the said submission strong reliance was placed on the decisions in A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, AIR 1989 SC 1239; Angile Insulations v. Devyashmore India Limited & Anr., (1995) 4 SCC 153=60 (1995) DLT 522 (SC) and South East Asia Skipping Co. Ltd. v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Private Limited & Ors., (1996) 3 SCC 443. On the other hand, contention advanced by Mr. S.K. Khanna appearing for the plaintiffs was two fold. First, that the issue at hand is fully covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in F.A.O.(OS) No. 26/94, M/s. Bachan Singh & Sons v. DS & D Haryana & Another, on May 23,1994. Second, that Tender Conditiion No. 24 did not debar the filing of the present suit at Delhi where a part of the cause of action had indisputably arisen by reason of the facts disclosed in para 25 of the plaint. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in M/s. Instruments Incorporated v. Industrial Cables (India) Limited & Others, AIR 1996 Karanataka 360;and R.S.D.V. Finance Co.Pvt. Ltd. v. Share Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 2094.