HAMBURG SUDAMERIKANISHE Vs. RIBA TEXTILES P LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written request for adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, is declined. The dispute is mainly about territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

(2.) The trial Court vide order dated 17.02.2011 allowed the application filed by defendant No. 3-petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner') under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC with the observations that the Court at Panipat has no jurisdiction to try the suit, but vide separate order of even date, forwarded the plaint to be filed before the Court at Gohana. Both the orders are under challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not a legal one, in as much as, after having held that the Court at Panipat has no jurisdiction, the trial Court could not give any finding that the Court at Delhi and Gohana have the territorial jurisdiction, but should have stopped there and it was not the domain of the Court to pass an order on the application under Order 7 rule 10-A CPC for forwarding the case to Gohana Court. Secondly, it was urged that as per Bill of Lading, the Court of the City of Hamburg, Germany had the jurisdiction to try the suit instead of the Court at Gohana. Thirdly, it has been urged that as per the goods receipt dated 05.09.2008 issued by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, the Courts at New Delhi would have the exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that in any case, if the suit has not been filed in Germany Court, then it should have been filed in the Court at Delhi, as the office of the petitioner is located at Delhi. Lastly, It has been contended that as per the facts of the case, the goods were stuffed in the factory of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 at Gohana, where the seals were put on the cartons and thereafter, the same were transported for Delhi through defendant No. 1. Further the defendant No. 2 was to take the goods from Delhi to Mumbai and thereafter, the petitioner was to take those goods from Mumbai to Germany. As such, since no cause of action had accrued at Gohana, therefore, the Court at Gohana had no jurisdiction to try the suit.