Deep Agarwal v. M/S Symbol Technologies India Private Limited & Anr

O R D E R %

14.11.2025 CS(OS) 257/2022 along with I.A. 13491/2022 (on behalf of defendant no. 1 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC) & I.A.13492/2022 (on behalf of defendant no. 2 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC)

¶1I.A. 13491/2022 has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 seeking return of plaint to be presented in a Court of competent jurisdiction and I.A.13492/2022 has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 seeking a similar relief.

¶2In the Order passed on 25th February, 2025, contention of the plaintiff was recorded that the plaintiff was employed and worked at the Noida Office of the defendant no.1 company.

¶3Vide order dated 25th February, 2025, while considering the aforesaid The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. applications, defendants were directed to file an affidavit as to where the jurisdiction would lie in respect of cause of action asserted by the plaintiff in the present suit.

¶4Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit has been filed on defendant no. 1 stating that the jurisdiction would lie either before the competent courts in Bangalore, Karnataka or Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶5In light of the aforesaid affidavit, counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, submits that the plaintiff has no objection if the present suit is returned to be filed before the competent court in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶6In the affidavit filed on behalf of defendant no. 2, it is stated that the jurisdiction would lie only with the competent courts in Delaware, United States of America.

6.1. This is disputed by counsel for the plaintiff.

¶7Counsel for the plaintiff submits that he is ready and willing to file a suit before the competent court in Noida.

¶8A reading of the plaint and the documents filed with plaint does not disclose any part of cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

¶9Accordingly, the application is allowed and the plaint is ordered to be returned under provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to be presented in a Court having jurisdiction.

¶10In the event, plaintiff files a suit before the competent court in Noida, it would be open for the said Court to decide whether it has jurisdiction qua defendant no. 2 or not.

¶11In view of the fact that the plaint is being returned to be filed in a jurisdiction court of competent jurisdiction, the Registry is directed to issue a The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. AMIT BANSAL, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025 at The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 257/2022 & I.A. 13491-13492/2022, I.A. 21905/2022, I.A. 8607/2023 DEEP AGARWAL .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Kshitiz Khera, Advocate. versus M/S SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Samiron Borkataky & Mr. Ikshvaaku Marwah, Advocates for D- 1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL