VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2008 › High Court of Delhi

Sterlite Optical Tech v. Bharat Sanchar

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
12 September 2008
Bench
Sanjiv Khannaauthor
Case no.
CS(OS) 2284/2001

Judgment

order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2008

VKR/P

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page 1 F-12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2284/2001 Date of decision: 12th September, 2008 STERLITE OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Thakur, Mr. R.K. Mishra & Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocates. versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED ..... Defendant Through Mr. Dinesh Agnani & Ms. Leena Tuteja, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? IN OPEN COURT % 1. The plaintiff, Sterlite Optical Technologies Limited, having it's office at Aurangabad in Maharashtra has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,76,59,761/- with interest against the defendant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Page 2 2. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the claim of the plaintiff as I am of the opinion that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the present suit and the plaint has to be returned as per provisions of Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In these circumstances, I am not required to examine and decide all other issues framed by this Court vide order dated 27th April, 2004. The view I have taken is fortified by the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Janta Travels Pvt. Ltd versus Punjab Chemiplasts Ltd reported in 54 (1994) DLT 273. 3. By this order I will be disposing of issue No. 2 as framed vide Order dated 27th April, 2004, which reads as under:- "2) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. OPD" 4. As is apparent from the above issue, the onus of this issue was placed on the defendant. Parties have not lead any oral evidence on this issue. In this connection, learned counsel for the defendant has rightly drawn my attention to paragraph 27 of the plaint, which reads as under:- "27. The plaintiff states that this Hon'ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Page 3 present suit between the parties. Defendant is a company having its registered office situated at New Delhi, well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. All the circle offices of Defendant are fully controlled managed & supervised by the Defendant, who having their office at New Delhi well within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 5. The question which arises for consideration is even if the averments made in paragraph 27 of the plaint are admitted as correct, whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the present suit in view of Section 20(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with explanation to the said Section. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:- 20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.- Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or Page 4 carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. [Explanation]. A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place. Illustrations (a) A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business in Delhi. B

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.