Dismissed¶28

Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt. Ltd. (through Its A.R. Sh. Shailesh Kumar) v. Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd. (through Its Directors)

Delhi HC9 Jul 2026FAO (COMM)/133/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Exclusive jurisdiction clause; jurisdiction clause in invoice; return of plaint for presentation at Moradabad; territorial jurisdiction/maintainability of suit at Delhi; parties may confer exclusive jurisdiction where part of cause of action arises; recovery suit for writing paper/kraft papers; pendent lite interest @18% per annum; Rs.17,99,970/- claim; Rs.19,99,970/- unpaid; Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt Ltd vs Paragon Sales Pvt Ltd; FAO (COMM) 133/2026; High Court of Delhi; Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain JJ.; 09.07.2026; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Parties may, by agreement, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon one of the Courts having jurisdiction, provided a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. ¶9

Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt. Ltd. (through Its A.R. Sh. Shailesh Kumar) Vs Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd. (through Its Directors) — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in the recovery suit was correctly returned by the Court of first instance for presentation before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad, i.e., whether the suit instituted at Delhi was maintainable despite the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Plaintiff's invoices. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Parties may, by agreement, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon one of the Courts having jurisdiction, provided a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The precondition for enforcing the exclusive Moradabad clause was met, as it was not the Appellant's case that no part of the cause of action accrued in Moradabad.

¶9

Key takeaways

The Plaintiff, having itself issued the invoices containing the exclusive jurisdiction clause, cannot contend that the said clause was never intended to be acted upon or was never agreed to.ratio¶9
The Appellant failed to make out any ground for interference; the Court of first instance had merely returned the plaint while granting liberty to present the same before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Exclusive jurisdiction clause in supplier's invoices enforced; plaint return upheld. In FAO (COMM) 133/2026 (High Court of Delhi; Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain, JJ.; order dated 09.07.2026), the appeal by Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt Ltd against the Court of first instance's order returning its plaint for presentation at Moradabad was dismissed. The appellant had sued Paragon Sales Pvt Ltd in Delhi for recovery of Rs.17,99,970/- with pendent lite interest @18% per annum for writing paper supplied in FY 2022-23 and 2023-24 (Rs.19,99,970/- unpaid in FY 2024-25). Its invoices bore the clause 'All disputes subject to Moradabad Jurisdiction only', on which basis the trial court held the Delhi suit not maintainable. Holding that parties may confer exclusive jurisdiction by agreement on one of the courts having jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises there, and that a plaintiff issuing such invoices cannot urge the clause was never intended to be acted upon, the Bench found no ground for interference and dismissed the appeal, pending applications disposed of.

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO (COMM) 133/2026 & CM APPL. 30433/2026 BHOLA RAM PAPERS AND POWER PVT LTD. (THROUGH ITS A.R. SH. SHAILESH KUMAR) .....Appellant

¶4

Through: Mr. Jitender Kalra, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, SPC with Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi & Ms. Rebina Rai, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PARAGON SALES PVT LTD. (THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS) .....Respondent

¶7

Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶9

O R D E R % 09.07.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 30432/2026 (for exemption)

¶11

CM APPL. 30434/2026 (for exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

¶13

FAO (COMM) 133/2026

¶14

The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Court of first instance whereby the plaint filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff has been returned for presentation before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad.

¶15

The Appellant/Plaintiff had filed a suit against the Defendant, Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd., for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,99,970/along with pendent lite interest @18% per annum.

¶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 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51

¶18

It has been alleged that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and supply of kraft papers and newspaper print, writing papers, etc. It has been further claimed that, pursuant to the purchase orders placed by the Defendant, writing paper was supplied.However, the Defendant failed to pay the entire outstanding amount, though part payment had been made.

¶19

In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the writing paper was supplied during the Financial Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. However, an amount of Rs.19,99,970/- remained unpaid during the Financial Year 2024-25.

¶20

The invoice issued by the Appellant contains the following clause:

¶21

“All disputes subject to Moradabad Jurisdiction only

¶22

The Court of first instance held that, once the Appellant/Plaintiff had stipulated in its invoices that all disputes shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Moradabad, the suit instituted at Delhi was not maintainable.

¶23

Learned Counsel representing the Appellant submits that the Respondent carries on business in New Delhi and that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was never intended to be acted upon.

¶24

It is well settled that the parties may, by agreement, confer exclusive jurisdiction upon one of the Courts having jurisdiction, provided a part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. It is not the case of Appellant that no part of cause of action accrued in Moradabad. In the present case, the Plaintiff itself issued the invoices containing the exclusive jurisdiction clause. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot now contend that the said

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51

¶27

clause was never intended to be acted upon or was never agreed to. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the Appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference. The Court of first instance has merely returned the plaint while granting liberty to the Appellant to present the same before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction at Moradabad.

¶28

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶29

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶30

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶31

JULY 9, 2026/ pd/dg

¶32

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 13/07/2026 at 15:35:51

Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt. Ltd. (through Its A.R. Sh. Shailesh Kumar) v. Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd. (through Its Directors)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Ram Papers and Power Pvt. Ltd. (through Its A.R. Sh. Shailesh Kumar) v. Paragon Sales Pvt. Ltd. (through Its Directors)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General) - New Delhii Vs M/S Jbm Logistics

Nurhidaya Dalina Binti Aziz Vs the Commissioner of Customs

M/S Sai Decorative Gallery LLP & Anr. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)

M/S Pacific Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner, Cgst, Connaught Place Division, Delhi & Ors.

M/S. Maybell Tradings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ridhu Traders Vs Pr. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax