Delhi High Court Restores Recovery Suit, Says Mumbai Office Address On Invoices Can't Oust Delhi Court Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has held that mere mention of a Mumbai administrative office address on freight invoices and airway bills would not oust the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi courts when the defendant company's registered office is situated in Delhi and part of the cause of action arose within the capital.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by GAC Logistics against a trial court order returning its plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The dispute arose out of a recovery suit filed by the freight forwarding company against Acer Logistics, seeking recovery of over Rs. 14 lakh towards outstanding dues for shipment and forwarding services rendered for foreign consignments.

The trial court had returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, holding that the cause of action pertained to Mumbai.

Before the High Court, the appellant argued that substantial parts of the cause of action had arisen in Delhi since consignments were handed over at its Delhi office, payments and post-dated cheques were received and presented in Delhi, and accounts relating to the transactions were maintained there.

Accepting the contention, the Court observed that under Section 20(c) CPC, even a part of the cause of action arising within the territorial jurisdiction of a court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

The Court noted that the defendant company's registered office was located at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, whereas the Mumbai address reflected in invoices and airway bills was merely an administrative office.

In this backdrop the Court observed,

"Mere mention of the Mumbai administrative office address on invoices, airway bills or ledger accounts cannot, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, particularly in the absence of any exclusive jurisdiction clause between the parties. Further, the material placed on record demonstrates that parts of the cause of action arose within Delhi.”

Reliance was placed on Rameshwar Das Dwarka Das (P) Ltd. v. Deepak Puematics (P) Ltd. (2008) to reiterate that territorial jurisdiction can arise where payments are made or where a part of the transaction takes place.

As such, the Court set aside the impugned order and restored the recovery suit before the trial court.

For Appellant: Mr. Sanyat Lodha and Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocates

Case title: GAC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Acer Logistics Pvt. Ltd

Case no.: FAO 371/2024

Click here to read order