Delhi High CourtH.R.D. Enterprises vs Amtrex Ambience Ltd. on 9 November, 2001Equivalent citations: 2002 A I H C 2284JUDGMENT
 

  V.S. Aggarwal, J.1. M/s. H.R.D. Enterprises is a partnership concerned. A civil suit has been filed for recovery of Rs. 7,10,384/- against the defendant (Amtrex Ambience Ltd.). It has been pleased that the defendant company had appointed the plaintiff as a dealer in respect of air conditioner and air conditioning units being marketed by the defendant.  The defendant company had promised to pay the commission/remuneration. Accordingly, the firm commenced the work as a dealer of the defendant company and in such capacity effected sales of the products marketed by the defendant. It also provided after sales services. As per instructions of the defendant the plaintiff was required to book orders and intimate the same to the defendant who was thereupon to raise direct bills in the names of the customer. Other details are not relevant for purposes of the present order and suffice to say that plaintiff filed the suit for his remuneration alleging that the civil court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit  because plaintiff was appointed as a dealer by the defendant at Delhi and the defendant is to make the payment at Delhi. By and large all sale and work was executed at Delhi.2. In the written statement filed the defendant contested the suit. Besides other pleas it has been pleaded that the civil court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and only the civil court at Ahmedabad has jurisdiction to try the suit has per agreement between the parties.3. Issues had been framed by this Court on 6th November, 2000. Vide order passed on 12th January, 2001 issue No. 4 was treated as preliminary issue and it reads as under:-"4) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged?4. By this order the said order is proposed to be disposed of.5. On behalf of the plaintiff it was urged that contract had been entered into with the defendant at Delhi. The goods were supplied by the plaintiff to different customers at Delhi. Payments were also made at Delhi and, therefore, the Delhi Courts has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the contrary reliance is being placed by the defendant on the invoices placed on the record to urge that it was clearly mentioned that all the disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ahmedabad.6. To appreciate the said controversy reference can well be made toSection 20of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same 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 a 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 tim,e 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 carry or business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."7. It was Clause C of Sub-section 20of the Code of Civil Procedure which was being pressed into service to urge that cause of action, keeping in view the fact that contract was entered at Delhi, the plaintiff sold the goods at Delhi and even payment was made at Delhi, therefore, the Delhi Courts has jurisdiction. In addition to that it was contended that the defendant has its sub office even at Delhi.8. Reliance on behalf of the plaintiff was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of   Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Tropical Agro System Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.   . Almost identical question had come up for consideration before the Apex Court. It was held that so long as there is a subordinate office of the Corporation situated at such a place it would be taken also to be a place where the business is carried by the defendant and in this regard thereupon the Court held:-"This, it is clarified, will be the place where the principal office is situated (whether or not any business actually is carried on there) or the place where a business is carried on giving rise to a cause of action (even though the principal office of the Corporation is not located there) so long as there is a subordinate office of the Corporation situated at such place. The linking together of the place where the cause of action arises with the place where a subordinate office is located clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that, in the case of a Corporation, for the purposes of Clause (a), the location of the subordinate office, with the local limits of which a cause of  action arises, is to be the relevant place for the filing of a suit and not the principal place of business. If the intention was that the location of the sole or principal office as well as the location of the subordinate office (within the limits of which a cause of action arises) are to be deemed to be placed where the Corporation is deemed to be carrying on business, the disjunctive "or" will not be there. Instead, the second part of the Explanation would have read "and, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has a subordinate office, also at such place."9. It is true that it has been mentioned that the disputes arising out of the contract shall be settled in the Court at Ahmedabad but this condition is appended to the invoices pertaining to Amtrex brand. The defendant herein is Amtrex Ambience Ltd. Learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that plaintiff is not a party of these invoices and, therefore, would not be bound by the general conditions relied upon on behalf of the defendant. It is patent that Amtrex Ambience Ltd. is different from the company Amtrex Appliances. It may be having connections with each other but so far as the plaintiff's allegations are concerned it is contended by it that it was having dealing with the defendant and it was acting as the dealer of the defendant. At the present moment one has only to see the assertions that have been made in the plaint besides the statement of PW-1 Smt. Bhanu Seth. She has stated that the plaintiff has no dealing with M/s Amtrex Appliances Ltd. It was only having dealing with the defendant. The plaintiff was authorised dealer of the defendant for Delhi region and the plaintiff was appointed as dealer in April, 1994 at New Delhi. The air conditioners were sold by the plaintiff and also were installed in Delhi region. It has further been stated that the plaintiff is not bound by the direct dealing between Amtrex Appliances Ltd of Gujarat with customers in Delhi.10. The defendant felt shy of examination of any witness to show that in fact the contract was entered into at Ahmedabad or that the plaintiff was dealing on behalf of the defendant anywhere outside Delhi region. Keeping in view the same it must be held that the plaintiff has little to do with the dealings of M/s Amtrex Appliances directly with the customers. In that view of the matter the plaintiff cannot be held to be bound by the condition in the invoices, in which plaintiff is not a party, that it is subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Ahmedabad.11. Accordingly, the issue is decided in favor of the plaintiff. List it before the Joint Registrar on 16th January, 2002 for fixing the date for evidence of the parties. The Joint Registrar is appointed as the Local Commissioner.