SIDDHIDATRI AGRO PRIVATE LTD Vs. SHOUA SHAMS EST IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC impugning the judgment of the court below dated 29.5.2013 which has returned the plaint for filing in the court of competent jurisdiction. Para-25 of the plaint on the basis of which jurisdiction at Delhi is invoked reads as under:-

(2.) There are therefore only two grounds on the basis of which courts at Delhi are claimed to have jurisdiction. One is that parties have agreed to the jurisdiction at Delhi courts and the second is that payment is sent from New Delhi.

(3.) In law, so far as the contractual matters are concerned, those courts will have jurisdiction where the cause of action arises in whole or in part i.e where the contract is executed or where the contract has to be performed/breached or where the payment under the contract is to be made. This is in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.P.Agencies, Salem, 1989 AIR(SC) 1239 The only other ground on the basis of which Delhi courts would have jurisdiction would be if the defendant is carrying on business or working for gain at New Delhi.