M/S INKEL LIMITED vs M/S TRIMASTER PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16th May, 2025 + CM(M) 1228/2023 & CM APPL. 39269/2023 M/S INKEL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishwanathan Iyer and Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates. versus M/S TRIMASTER PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Malhotra and Mr. Chirag Goyal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner herein is defending a suit for recovery. 2. For the sake of convenience I would be referring to the parties as per their nomenclature before the learned Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff-M/s. Trimaster Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for recovery and according to plaintiff, the Courts in Delhi have jurisdiction, primarily, based on the recital appearing in the invoice in question. Such condition with respect to the jurisdiction, as contained in the invoice, reads as under:- “3. Disputes, if any, arising out of this to be settled in Court of Law in Delhi only.” 4. Fact remains that the abovesaid invoice is based on a purchase order issued by the defendant which also contains a jurisdiction clause which reads as under:- “9. This Purchase Order shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the Republic of India and the Courts of Ernakulam/Cochin shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try the cases if any relating to this Purchase Order.” 5. The issue is as to which of the abovesaid two clauses would prevail and why and the decision thereof is not dependent on leading of the evidence by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1228/2023 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:17.05.2025 16:40:15 the parties. 6. The defendant had moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint, based on the jurisdiction clause appearing in the purchase order. 7. The