FAO (COMM) 43/2023
SONAL KANODIA v. SHRI RAM GUPTA & ANR.
The current appeal was filed challenging the order of 17th December, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-04, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi in the Commercial Suit, CS (COMM) No.506/2021. Here the application of the Appellant under Order VII Rule(s) 10 (Return of plaint; Procedure on returning plaint) and 11 (Rejection of plaint) CPC was dismissed. Matter before the HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant (Defendant previously) contended that the Trial Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the Appellant (Defendant No.1) does not have any business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Respondent (Plaintiff No.1) within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Further it was stated that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that neither of the parties had their head office in New Delhi and that both the offices are in Kanpur from where the business is run and operated.
Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant states that the Respondent (Plaintiff
No.1 previously) had made false averments in the plaint regarding the clandestine sale of goods and products by the Appellant in the Shahdara District. He contended that that the averments made were made without any proof/documents as to the presence of the Appellant in the markets of Delhi especially in East Delhi, either in physical or online mode.
JUDGEMENT
The Court was of the view that it was a settled law that an application under Order VII Rule(s) 10 and 11 CPC was to be decided on a demurrer accepting all statements made in the plaint to be true. This was stated by referring to the case of Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. RA Perfumery Works Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529).
The Court stated that at the stage of considering an application under Order VII Rule(s) 10 and 11 CPC, the Court was not required to examine the merits of the averments made and to evaluate whether the Plaintiff would be able to prove or establish the same. For the purpose of an application under the mentioned provisions the averments made in the plaint were required to be considered as correct.
Thus, the Court was of the view that if the statements made in the plaint were accepted to be correct, then the Court would also have the jurisdiction to entertain the current suit. Thus, disposing the appeal.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ADITYA G S.
Click here to view your judgement
