Disposed

Hindcon Chemical Ltd. v. S.K. Ghosh and Ors.

Delhi HC4 Nov 2024CM(M)/988/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition seeking earlier hearing of an objection to territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Trial Court to frame an additional issue. The High Court disposed of the petition as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed with liberty to move an application before the Trial Court for framing an additional issue on territorial jurisdiction.

Hindcon Chemical Ltd. Vs S.K. Ghosh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~71

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 988/2023

¶4

HINDCON CHEMICAL LTD .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Kaushik Kr. Dey, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

S.K. GHOSH AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.11.2024

¶12

CM(M) 988/2023 & CM APPL. 64492/2024(early hearing)

¶13

Petitioner is defending a commercial suit and application has been moved seeking earlier hearing of the petition in question.

¶14

There is no appearance from the side of respondent despite advance service.

¶15

However, keeping in mind the fact that a very short point is involved in the present petition, the date is pre-poned and the matter is taken up, today itself, for the hearing.

¶16

The defendant had taken an objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction and had prayed for return of the suit by moving an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

¶17

Learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the averments made in the plaint, in particular, what had been averred in para 14, came to the conclusion that

¶18

CM(M) 988/2023 1

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:06:35

¶21

the Court had territorial jurisdiction as the defendant had, as per averments made in the plaint, contacted the plaintiff in Delhi.

¶22

According to learned counsel for defendant, such assertion is false and moreover, a preliminary objection in this regard, had already been taken. 7. It is also contended that when the matter was taken up by the learned Trial Court on 02.06.2023, the Trial Court had even observed that since the issue of the territorial jurisdiction was already seized before this Court, it would be appropriate to defer the framing of issues. However, subsequently, the issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 15.07.2024 and there is no issue with respect to the aspect of ‘territorial jurisdiction’.

¶23

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to request the learned Trial Court to frame additional issue with respect to ‘territorial jurisdiction’ .

¶24

The case is, reportedly, fixed today before the learned Trial Court. 10. Needless to say, at times, such issue pertaining to territorial competency is a mixed question of fact and law and since a specific objection, in this regard is already stated to have been taken in the written statement, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed and liberty is granted to petitioner to move appropriate application before the learned Trial Court praying for framing of additional issue with respect to the territorial competency of the Court concerned.

¶25

Let the application be moved within three weeks from today and, as and when, any such application is moved, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶26

CM(M) 988/2023 2

¶27

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 03:06:35

¶28

It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation, either way, with respect to the aforesaid aspect. Suffice it to say that, at times, such question of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ is a mixed question of fact and law and learned Trial Court would be at liberty to decide the above said application keeping in mind the averments stated in the respective pleadings.

¶29

The next date stands cancelled.

¶30

The petition stands disposed of.

¶31

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶32

NOVEMBER 4, 2024/ sw

¶33

CM(M) 988/2023 3

¶34

Hindcon Chemical Ltd. v. S.K. Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindcon Chemical Ltd. v. S.K. Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tdi Infrastructure Limited Vs Supreet Kaur & Ors.

M/S. Sonam Furniture Vs Wood Tech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Abhishek Kumar Vs M G Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. & Anr.

Harish Katyal Vs Pawan Kumar Dhawan & Ors.

Usha Rani Vs Kavindra Singh & Ors.

M/S Oasis Overseas Export Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/S Faith Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.

Usha Rani Vs Bhupinder Sharma & Anr.

Usha Rani Rohilla Vs Jai Kumar

M/S Tdi Infrastructure Limited Vs Supreet Kaur & Ors.

Sh Surender Singh Vs Smt Shashi Bala Shukla & Ors.

M/S. Sonam Furniture Vs Wood Tech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sh.Joginder Singh Vs Sh.Kuldeep Singh and Others & Anr.

Amr-Bbb Consortium through Lead Partner, Amr India Limited Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Smt. Lata Rani Sharma Vs Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Ors.