Allowed

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

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025CS(OS)/257/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff sued defendants in employment-related matter. Defendants sought return of plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. Court found no part of cause of action arose within Delhi and returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before the competent court at Noida, with refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; plaint returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC; Registry directed to issue certificate for 100% refund of court fees under Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

Deep Agarwal Vs M/S Symbol Technologies India Private… — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(OS) 257/2022 & I.A. 13491-13492/2022, I.A. 21905/2022, I.A. 8607/2023

¶4

DEEP AGARWAL .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Kshitiz Khera, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Samiron Borkataky & Mr. Ikshvaaku Marwah, Advocates for D- 1 & 2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R % 14.11.2025

¶10

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 )

¶11

I.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.

¶12

In the Order passed on 25^th 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.

¶13

Vide order dated 25^th February, 2025, while considering the aforesaid

¶14

CS(OS) 257/2022

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 19/11/2025 at 14:23:11

¶18

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.

¶19

Pursuant 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.

¶20

In 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.

¶21

In 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.

¶22

6.1. This is disputed by counsel for the plaintiff.

¶23

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

¶24

A 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.

¶25

Accordingly, 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.

¶26

In 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.

¶27

In 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

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

CS(OS) 257/2022

¶30

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 19/11/2025 at 14:23:11

¶31

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.

¶32

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶33

NOVEMBER 14, 2025 at

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

CS(OS) 257/2022

¶36

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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 Atishay Jain Constructions Vs Sh. Anil Kumar Verma & Ors.

Mohinder Agrawal Vs Avadesh Garg and Ors.

Babita Vs Vikas Drall & Ors.

Shri Vivek Jain Vs Jinendra Kumar Jain & Ors.

Arun Kumar Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Manish Khurana & Anr. Vs Smt. Simmi Kundra & Ors.

Mr Pavanjit Korotania Vs Mr Amit Jatana

Rita Bhagwati & Anr. Vs Rajan Dham & Ors.

M/S Sunrise Enterprises Vs Irrigation Flood Control Department

Axis Finance Limited Vs Peeyush Nair

M/S Sunrise Enterprises Vs Irrigation and Flood Control Department

Subhash Garg & Ors. Vs Lala Ram Sharma & Ors.

M/S Alpro Industries Vs M/S Ambience Pvt. Limited & Anr.

Samsung Data Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mku Limited