Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Reserve: 15 November, 2010
nd
Date of Order: 22 November, 2010
+Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010
%
22.11.2010
M/S KAJARIA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Hanif Mohammad, Mr Pramod Kumar
and Mr. Shakil Ahmed, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP for the State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
th
1. This revision has been preferred against order dated 13 April, 2010
passed by learned M.M. dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The
learned MM observed that the agreement between the parties had taken
place at Jaipur, Rajasthan in respect of development of land situated in
Jaipur, Rajasthan. The parties had prepared a Joint Development Agreement
(JDA) and Clause No. 31 of this JDA reveals that both parties had agreed to
confer jurisdiction on Courts at Jaipur. He observed that no part of the
alleged offence had taken place in Delhi and therefore Delhi Courts would
have no jurisdiction.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that detailed discussions
were held on various dates between the appellant and respondent at Delhi.
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 1 of 3
The respondent No. 2 had approached the revisionist company in January,
2008 for development of a land situated at Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar
Road, Jaipur and assured that it was a profitable project for investment. After
detailed discussions the JDA was prepared. However, before the JDA could
be signed ` 11.00 lakh were demanded by respondent No. 2 from the
petitioner as a token advance amount and it was specifically agreed that this
amount received from the petitioner would be refundable in the event of delay
in materializing the deal. The amount was paid in good faith. However, later
on despite continuous request of the petitioner to respondent JDA was not
signed between the parties. It is stated that therefore cause of action had
taken place in Delhi. Reliance is placed on Section 178 Cr. P.C. which
provides that when it was uncertain in which of several local areas an offence
was committed or where an offence was a continuing one and was committed
in more than one local area then the court of different places, where the part
of offence had been committed, shall have jurisdiction.
3. Both respondents in this case are situated in Rajasthan at Jaipur. The
land in question about which agreement was contemplated is in Jaipur,
Rajasthan. The documents which were to be signed by the parties have been
placed on record by the petitioner. The Arbitration Clause of JDA would show
that parties had specifically agreed that jurisdiction will be of Courts at Jaipur
only and in case of dispute the matter would be referred for arbitration and
arbitration shall be held in Jaipur. It is so mentioned not only in JDA but even
in Indemnity Cum Guarantee Deed. There is no documentary proof that a
sum of ` 11.00 lakh was given in Delhi. The cheque of ` 11.00 lakh was
presented at a bank in Jaipur, encashed there, thus, prima facie all acts of this
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 2 of 3
transaction had taken place at Jaipur. It is petitioner’s own case that
respondent had filed a consumer case against the petitioner at Jaipur.
4. I consider that under these circumstances trial court rightly came to
conclusion that courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction.
5. There is no infirmity in the order of trial court. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 3 of 3
th
Date of Reserve: 15 November, 2010
nd
Date of Order: 22 November, 2010
+Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010
%
22.11.2010
M/S KAJARIA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ... Petitioner
Through: Mr Hanif Mohammad, Mr Pramod Kumar
and Mr. Shakil Ahmed, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, Addl. PP for the State
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
th
1. This revision has been preferred against order dated 13 April, 2010
passed by learned M.M. dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The
learned MM observed that the agreement between the parties had taken
place at Jaipur, Rajasthan in respect of development of land situated in
Jaipur, Rajasthan. The parties had prepared a Joint Development Agreement
(JDA) and Clause No. 31 of this JDA reveals that both parties had agreed to
confer jurisdiction on Courts at Jaipur. He observed that no part of the
alleged offence had taken place in Delhi and therefore Delhi Courts would
have no jurisdiction.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that detailed discussions
were held on various dates between the appellant and respondent at Delhi.
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 1 of 3
The respondent No. 2 had approached the revisionist company in January,
2008 for development of a land situated at Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikar
Road, Jaipur and assured that it was a profitable project for investment. After
detailed discussions the JDA was prepared. However, before the JDA could
be signed ` 11.00 lakh were demanded by respondent No. 2 from the
petitioner as a token advance amount and it was specifically agreed that this
amount received from the petitioner would be refundable in the event of delay
in materializing the deal. The amount was paid in good faith. However, later
on despite continuous request of the petitioner to respondent JDA was not
signed between the parties. It is stated that therefore cause of action had
taken place in Delhi. Reliance is placed on Section 178 Cr. P.C. which
provides that when it was uncertain in which of several local areas an offence
was committed or where an offence was a continuing one and was committed
in more than one local area then the court of different places, where the part
of offence had been committed, shall have jurisdiction.
3. Both respondents in this case are situated in Rajasthan at Jaipur. The
land in question about which agreement was contemplated is in Jaipur,
Rajasthan. The documents which were to be signed by the parties have been
placed on record by the petitioner. The Arbitration Clause of JDA would show
that parties had specifically agreed that jurisdiction will be of Courts at Jaipur
only and in case of dispute the matter would be referred for arbitration and
arbitration shall be held in Jaipur. It is so mentioned not only in JDA but even
in Indemnity Cum Guarantee Deed. There is no documentary proof that a
sum of ` 11.00 lakh was given in Delhi. The cheque of ` 11.00 lakh was
presented at a bank in Jaipur, encashed there, thus, prima facie all acts of this
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 2 of 3
transaction had taken place at Jaipur. It is petitioner’s own case that
respondent had filed a consumer case against the petitioner at Jaipur.
4. I consider that under these circumstances trial court rightly came to
conclusion that courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction.
5. There is no infirmity in the order of trial court. The petition is hereby
dismissed.
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
Crl. Rev. P. 186 of 2010 Page 3 of 3