Vijay Kumar Gupta vs. Mohit Malik

Facts

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Gupta, is challenging two orders of the Commercial Court, Delhi. The respondent, Mohit Malik, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,60,210/- for industrial fuel supplied between January 2020 and February 2020. The petitioner had previously purchased fuel in August 2018 for Rs. 1,98,240/-, which was paid. The petitioner filed a written statement and an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint. The respondent sought to amend the plaint, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, imposing costs, leading to the present petition.

Held

The Court held that when considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint, read with the documents relied upon, are relevant. The pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are irrelevant at this stage. The Court found that the respondent had averred in the plaint that the petitioner approached and placed the order from the respondent's office/warehouse in Shahdara district, and received goods there. Furthermore, the respondent received payment in its bank account in Shahdara, Delhi, and the respondent's VAT number was issued at its Shahdara address. The Court also applied the principle that where no place of payment is specified, the debtor must seek the creditor, making the suit maintainable where the creditor resides or works for gain. Citing "Das Brothers Zemindary Co. Ltd. vs. Surendera Nath Das" and "Sreenivasa Pulvarising vs. Jal Glass & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.", the Court concluded that a part of the cause of action arose in Shahdara district, Delhi, where the respondent's office is located and payment was received. Therefore, the suit for recovery was maintainable in the learned Trial Court. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the respondent's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, given its alleged vagueness and failure to disclose the real cause of action, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the learned Trial Court committed a grave error of law and fact in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, by finding that a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, despite the petitioner's contention that the respondent's principal place of business and the transactions occurred outside Shahdara district, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The amendment application was vague and did not disclose changes. The cause of action did not accrue within the Shahdara district as the petitioner resides in Palwal, Haryana, invoices were raised from Mundka, Delhi, Dharam Kanta slips were from Hodal, Haryana, e-way bills bore a Mundka address, and goods were supplied in Hodal, Palwal, Haryana. The Trial Court erred in considering the 2018 payment as part of the cause of action for the current suit. Respondent's arguments: The petitioner approached the respondent at its office in Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, goods were supplied from Mundka, and payments were received electronically in its bank account at Central Bank of India, Shahdara, Delhi, thus conferring territorial jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on "M/s Auto Movers vs. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd."