M/S HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD. versus M/S. PUROMATIC FILTERS (P) LTD.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MIS HANIL ERA TEXTILES LTD. 
A 
v. 
MIS. PUROMATIC FILTERS (P) LTD. 
APRIL 16, 2004 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
S. 20(c) and Order VII, r. 10--Suit-Jurisdiction of Court-Agreement 
containing exclusionary clause-Part of cause of action arising at two places- C 
Held, having regard to the facts of the case, there was a clear intention to 
confine the jurisdiction of the courts in the city mentioned in the agreement 
to the exclusion of all other courts. 
In a suit for recovery of dues under a purchase order filed in the D 
court of District Judge, Delhi, the defendant-appellant moved an 
application under s. 20 r/w Order VII Rule 10 and s.151 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of the plaint for proper presentation 
before the court having jurisdiction contending that as per the terms of 
the purchase order which were agreed to by the plaintiff the legal 
proceedings were subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai; and even E 
de hors the said condition, the contract for supply of goods was entered 
into between the parties at Mumbai where advance payment was made 
by the plaintiff to the defendant. Plaintiff claimed that the goods were 
dispatched from Delhi through a transporter after receipt of Form CT-3, 
which had been issued by the defendant and as such a part of cause of 
action accrued in Delhi. The application was rejected by the trial court, F 
so also the appeal by the High Court. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In the present case, a part of cause of action has accrued in G 
both the places viz. Delhi and Mumbai; and there is also a clause in the 
purchase order stipulating that any legal proceedings arising out of the 
order shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai; though 
the clause is not qualified by the words like "alone", "only" or 
333 
II 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A "exclusively". Having regard to the fact that the order was placed by the 
defendant at Mumbai; the said order was accepted by the branch office 
of the plaintiff at Mumbai, the advance payment was made by the 
defendant at Mumbai, and as per the plaintiffs' case the final payment 
was to be made at Mumbai, there was a clear intention to confine the 
jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai to the exclusion of all·other courts. 
B The Court of Additional District Judge; Delhi had, therefore, no territo.rial 
jurisdiction to try the suit. [337-B-C; 338-B-D] 
Hakam Singh v. Gammano (India) Ltd., [1971) 1 SCC 286, relied on. 
C 
A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, AIR (1989) SC 1239, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2490 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2001 of the Delhi High 
D Court in F.A.No. 271 of 1998. 
Shridhar Y Chitale, Ms. Deepa Somasekhar and Abhijat P. Medh for 
the Appellants. 
C.S.N. Mohan Rao (NP) for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MATHUR, J. l..Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 
21.12.2001 of the High Court of Delhi by which the appeal preferred by the 
F appellant against the order of rejection of the appellant's application under 
Order VII Rule 10 CPC passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 
28.3.1998 was dismissed. 
3. The appellant Hanil Era Textiles Limited, New Era House, Mogul 
Lane, Matunga (West), Bombay placed a purchase order bearing No. CA/32/ 
G 95 dated 31.5.1995 with M/s Puromatic Filters Pvt. Ltd. 25/100, Y ash want 
Nagar, Goregaon (W), Bombay for supply of 136 numbers Coarse Filters and 
136 numbers Fine Filters. The purchase order was in following terms : 
"Dear Sir, 
H 
We are pleased to order the Material parts listed below subject to 
. · 
I 
I 
HANILERA TEXTILES LTD. v. PUROMATICFILTERS(P)LTD. [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 335 
terms, conditions and instructions, on the reverse hereof and the A 
attachments, if any hereto. Please acknowledge your acceptance by 
returning the duplicate copy duly signed within one week." 
Thirty per cent of the amount was paid as advance. The delivery 
instructions contained a clause - Deliver the material at NEW ERA HOUSE/ 
Patalganga Factory. The purchase order mentioned that the same was subject B 
to the terms and conditions mentioned thereon. Condition No.17 reads as 
under: 
"17. JURISDICTION 
Any legal proceeding arising out of the order shall be subject to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.