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

Court: Delhi High Court
Date: 2025-05-16
Citation: CM(M)-1228/2023 2025:DHC:3952
Petitioner: M/S INKEL LIMITED
Respondent: M/S TRIMASTER PVT LTD

[Official PDF on Delhi High Court website](https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60916052025CMM12282023_164242.pdf)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

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 Repub

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/may/m-s-inkel-limited-vs-m-s-trimaster-pvt-ltd