SAHAJ-E-VILLAGE Vs. ORACLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant No.1 for sale of software and/or portal at a price of Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakhs Twelve Thousand and Thirty Two. They initially paid Fifty Lakhs and declined to pay the balance raising a dispute as to the functioning of the portal. Further transactions were had between the parties as would appear from the plaint. The plaintiff would claim, being induced by the defendant, they issued work order for development of the portal and its maintenance as well as Online Database and Solution Support Centre services for an agreed amount of Rupees Five Crores Seventy Four Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Five and Paise Eight. The appellant-plaintiff would contend, despite receipt of the past consideration that would amount to Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Five Thousand Five hundred Seventy Seven, the defendant failed to extend the services. Portals were also not in operation. As a result, they suffered huge loss that they assessed at Rupees One Hundred Fourteen Crores Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Three and Paise Forty Eight.

(2.) They also obtained leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the basis of the averment that a part of the cause of action arose within and a part thereof outside, of this Court. Upon receipt of notice, the defendant No. 1 filed an application for dismissal of the suit and/or return of plaint as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction. The defendant No. 2 filed an application for dismissal of the suit as against them, on the ground, the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against them. Learned Judge held, the plaint did disclose cause of action as against the defendant No. 2 and as such dismissed the application of the defendant No. 2, however, allowed the application of the defendant No. 1 holding, this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and directed the suit to be heard by Delhi Courts. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed this appeal. The defendant No. 2, however, accepted the decision and did not make any grievance.

(3.) Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Senior Counsel would submit, the learned Judge erred in appreciating the case of the plaintiffs.