Dismissed

Chaudhary Chemical Industries v. National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2009CR/2703/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Civil Revision Nos. 2703 and 2704 of 2009, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitions challenging an order upholding the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Anandpur Sahib in a suit for recovery of dues for Nitric Acid sales, finding no illegality.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed; orders of first appellate court affirmed.

Chaudhary Chemical Industries Vs National… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.2703 of 2009(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.2703 of 2009 Date of Decision : 14 .12.2009

¶5

Chaudhary Chemical Industries, Jaipuria Mills, Clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.

¶6

...... Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

National Fertilizers Limited and another

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

Civil Revision No.2704 of 2009

¶11

Chaudhary Chemical Industries, Jaipuria Mills, Clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi.

¶12

...... Petitioner

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

National Fertilizers Limited and another

¶15

...... Respondents

¶16

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶17

Present: Mr.R.B.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):

¶20

The aforesaid two Revision Petitions Nos.2703 and 2704 of 2009, having arisen out of the order dated 02.04.2009, passed by District Judge, Ropar, are being disposed of by a common judgment.

¶21

The trial Court, while deciding issue of territorial jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner-defendant, observed that the Court at Anandpur Sahib has no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was accepted and observed that Court at Anandpur Sahib has to try the suit.

¶22

The National Fertilizers Limited filed a suit for recovery of

¶23

¶24

Civil Revision No.2703 of 2009(O&M)

¶25

Rs.46,424.43 paisa against the defendants on the basis of the balance amount against the defendants on account of purchase of Nitric Acid from the plaintiff company which was delivered to the defendants at its manufacturing unit, Naya Nangal. The defendants purchased 2412.52 Metric Ton of Nitric Acid during the period of 23.04.1980 to 22.03.1985 and sought the delivery of the same at Naya Nangal. After making payment as agreed between the parties balance sale price of Rs.29,717.65 remained outstanding and after adding interest, the outstanding amount against the defendants came to Rs.46,424.43. The said suit was contested. While finding that the parties were at variance on the different issues, 12 issues were framed. However, issue No.3 with regard to territorial jurisdiction was treated as preliminary issue. The trial Court decided this preliminary issue against the plaintiff and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings and decided the same in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have particularly averred with regard to receipt of the orders and dispatch of the goods to the defendants at Naya Nangal. Therefore, it could definitely be said that the plaintiff had cause of action at Naya Nangal. It has also been observed in case Taneja Skins Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Skins CorporationAIR 2002 Delhi 179 as under:-

¶26

“ It was not disputed during the course of submissions that even under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure if cause of action had arisen at Delhi indeed civil courts at Delhi will have jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit.

¶27

From the evidence on the record, it is patent firstly that one Rahim used to act on behalf of the defendant though defendant asserts that he was only a commission agent. The plaintiff's contention is that he in fact was an employee of the defendant. The defendant feels shy of producing the employees register to indicate that he was not the employee and, therefore, necessary

¶28

Civil Revision No.2703 of 2009(O&M)

¶29

¶30

inference has to be drawn against the defendant in this regard. Rahim should be taken to be an employee acting on behalf of the defendant.

¶31

Admittedly, the manufacturing unit of the plaintiff from where the goods were supplied to the defendants is situated at Naya Nangal and certainly the goods were supplied to the defendants from the said place. Notwithstanding the fact that the head office of the Company is at Delhi and the suit was filed by its Chandigarh office yet it would be erroneous to say that safeguard at Delhi would be the only Court to entertain and try the suit.

¶32

In Taneja Skins's case (supra), the Court further held that when the purchase has been taken at Delhi, the sale had taken place of the seller and not at the place of the purchaser. Then certainly the place where the sale was made would have the jurisdiction to try the suit. The company having its manufacturing unit cannot be said to have no office at Naya Nangal, therefore, the Civil Court at Anandpur Sahib certainly could be said to be competent Court to try the suit.

¶33

Having scrutinized the impugned order, the same does not smell of any illegality much less irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, finding no grounds to interfere in the petitions, the same are dismissed.

¶34

14.12.2009 mamta-II

Chaudhary Chemical Industries v. National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaudhary Chemical Industries v. National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Goyal Vs H.L. Goyal & Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs Yeo Ram and Ors.

Sandeep Arora Vs Sandeep Sethi

Chaudhary Chemical Industries Vs National Fertilizers Ltd. and Anr.

Shokat Ali Vs Shakulat and Anr.

Arun Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.