Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 505 (DEL)

BHAT CARPETS v. AMI INDIA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.

2004-07-15

VIKRAMAJIT SEN

body2004
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE following Issue, amongst others, was framed on 27. 8. 2002 and was ordered to be treated as preliminary issue: (1) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Suit? by these Orders I propose to dispose of this preliminary issue. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly stated for the present purposes is that an agreement for the carriage of goods i. e. 91 bales covered by Gunny containing carpets has been entered into between the parties. The Plaintiff has itself filed the Bill of Lading which clearly states that it is a Multimodal Transport Document. A perusal of the document discloses that the port of loading was Bombay/j. N. PORT and the consignee was located in Zurich, Swritzerland. It appears that an objection had been taken by the Plaintiff in response to an application filed by the Defendant under Order VII Rule 11 to the effect that the subject carriage was not a `multimodal Transport. Since, it is the Plaintiff s documents which is being relied on, it is binding on the Plaintiff and requires no evidence for its formal proof. Judicial notice must be taken of the fact that the goods would necessarily have to travel firstly by sea and thereafter, by road or rail or air. It would accordingly indubitably constitute a Multimodal Transport, thereby attracting the provisions of the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993. Section 25 of the said Act reads as follows: "jurisdiction for instituting action-Any party to the multimodal transport contract may institute an action in a court which is competent and within the jurisdiction of which is situated on of the following places, namely:- (a) the principal place of business, or, in the absence thereof, the habitual residence, of the defendant; or (b) the place where the multimodal transport contract was made, provided that the defendant has a place of business, branch or agency at such place; or (c) the place of taking charge of the goods for multimodal transportation or the place of delivery thereof; or (d) any other place specified in the multimodal transport contract and evidenced in the multimodal transport document. " ( 3 ) EVEN a cursory consideration of the Section inexorably leads to the conclusion that the provisions are no different to Section 20 of the CPC, and the exposition of the law in M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 . No part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi and the Defendant does not have a principal place of business or its habitual residence in Delhi. If any doubts as to the arising of the cause of action in Delhi still remain, reference to the Plaintiff s letter dated 15. 2. 1997 would amply dispel them. This letter endorses and reiterates the statements contained in the Bill of Lading i. e. that the port of loading was Bombay; and that no part of the transaction between the parties took place in Delhi. ( 4 ) IN these circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court does not enjoy territorial jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the Suit. The Plaint is accordingly directed to be returned to the Plaintiff for filing within the prescribed period in a Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 5 ) PRELIMINARY Issue answered accordingly, and the suit is disposed of as far as this Court is concerned, in the above terms.