Vikrant Kapoor vs Anuj Kohli & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
st
Date of decision: 31 AUGUST, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
# CNR No. DLHC011098652025
I.A. 17356/2026
IN
+ CS(COMM) 161/2026 & I.A. 4500/2026, I.A. 4501/2026, I.A.
4502/2026, I.A. 4503/2026, I.A. 16979/2026, I.A. 16982/2026, I.A.
17384/2026
VIKRANT KAPOOR .....Plaintiff
Through: Appearance not given.
versus
ANUJ KOHLI & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Pulkit Thareja and Mr. Sumukh
Valimbe, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
I.A. 17356/2026
1. The present Application under Order VII Rule 10 has been filed on
behalf of the Defendants No.1 and 5 for return of the Plaint on the ground
that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of
Rs.3,34,46,537/- along with other reliefs.
3. The Plaintiff is a jeweller engaged in the business of trading and
manufacturing gold ornaments through his proprietorship firm, operating
from City Sarafa, Ghantaghar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and the present dispute
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 1 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
arises out of a series of commercial transactions between the Plaintiff and
the Defendants, who had been engaged in a longstanding business
relationship for about 10–12 years, dealing in gold and jewellery on the
basis of mutual trust and approval/credit arrangements.
4. Facts, as stated in the Plaint, are stated as under:
a. In January 2024, the Defendants approached the Plaintiff and
obtained approximately 640 grams of 24-karat fine gold, valued
at about Rs. 40,96,000/-, on approval basis, assuring that the
same would either be returned or paid for within one month.
Despite expiry of the stipulated period, the Defendants neither
returned the gold nor made payment and, upon repeated follow-
ups by the Plaintiff, the Defendants represented that they were
expecting the gold to be sold shortly. It is stated that in March
2024, despite the earlier default, the Defendants again
approached the Plaintiff and induced him to further supply 551
grams of 24-karat fine gold. It is stated that the Defendants
assured the Plaintiff that the entire quantity of 1,191 grams of
gold would be returned along with interest at 5% per month,
and that the earlier outstanding dues would also be cleared.
b. In October 2024, the Defendants again approached the Plaintiff
and represented that they were expecting a large customer order
and the proceeds from that order would enable them to clear the
outstanding dues. It is stated that relying upon these
representations and the longstanding business relationship, the
Plaintiff supplied 3,185 grams of 18-karat gold ornaments on
14.10.2024 against an invoice of Rs. 2,00,52,295/-, followed by
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 2 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
a further supply of 1,836 grams of 18-karat gold ornaments on
16.10.2024 against an invoice of Rs. 1,15,64,325/-. It is stated
that the Defendants failed to make the promised payments and
thereafter, stopped responding to the Plaintiff's calls and
messages, compelling Plaintiff to make repeated visits to their
Delhi premises for recovery of dues.
c. In March 2025, after several months of avoiding the Plaintiff,
the Defendants contacted him and supplied jewellery worth
approximately Rs. 1.79 crores, representing the same to be a
partial settlement of the outstanding dues. However, shortly
thereafter, on 02.04.2025, the Defendants again requested the
Plaintiff to supply fine gold on behalf of one Alia Jewellers,
representing that the gold would be processed into premium
ornaments and the sale proceeds would enable them to clear the
remaining dues and return the earlier gold. It is stated that
acting upon the said representations, the Plaintiff supplied a TT
gold bar weighing 2,109 grams on 03.04.2025 against an
invoice of Rs. 1,97,29,917/-, duly signed by Defendant No. 1,
Anuj Kohli.
d. To reinforce the assurance of repayment, Defendant No. 1
handed over to the Plaintiff two cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each.
It is stated that the Plaintiff deposited the cheques on
12.04.2025, but both cheques returned as dishonoured on
14.04.2025. Thereafter, when the Plaintiff approached the
Defendants to seek an explanation, the Defendants denied
having received the fine gold supplied in January and March
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 3 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
2024. It is averred that the Defendants relied upon manipulated
books, bills and transaction records containing altered dates,
billing entities and purported credits in an attempt to dispute
and evade their liability.
e. On 02.06.2025, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint against the
Defendants pursuant to which an FIR No. 131/2025 came to be
registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh,
concerning allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and
forgery. It is stated that despite the criminal proceedings and
repeated efforts for recovery, the Defendants failed to discharge
their outstanding liabilities.
f. It is stated that after registration of the above FIR, the
Defendants began to alienate their assets attempting to defeat
the claim of the Plaintiff. For instance, on 25.08.2025, the
Defendant No. 3 executed a Sale Deed in respect of his
commercial property in favour of a third party. Further, on
26.08.2025, the Plaintiff received a communication from the
office of the Sub-Registrar, Central District, Delhi, informing
him that the said Sale Deed had been presented for registration.
The Plaintiff states that he thereafter received a credible
information that the Defendants were attempting to dispose of
their other movable and immovable assets, including the shop
premises at Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the residential property
at Gurugram, in order to frustrate recovery proceedings.
g. Plaintiff has, thereafter, instituted the present commercial Suit
seeking recovery of the outstanding amount, return of 1,191
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 4 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
grams of fine gold with interest, compensation and damages,
and protective/permanent injunctions against alienation of the
Defendants' assets.
5. Summons in the present Suit were issued on 18.02.2026.
6. The present Application under Order VII Rule 10 has been filed on
behalf of the Defendants No.1 and 5 for return of the Plaint on the ground
that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, as the invoices raised by the
Plaintiff, which is the contract entered into between the parties, clearly
mentions that any dispute arising out of the said receipt would be subject to
Meerut jurisdiction. It is, therefore, stated that the parties by an agreement
had agreed to confer jurisdiction to the courts at Meerut only, from where
the goods were sent and, therefore, the present Suit is not maintainable.
7. A reply to the Application has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein it is
stated that the goods were delivered at Delhi and, therefore, this Court will
have jurisdiction. It is also stated that Section 20 of CPC confers jurisdiction
upon a Court where the defendant resides, carries on business or personally
works for gain, as well as where the cause of action wholly or in part arises
and, since the goods were delivered at Delhi, this Court will have the
jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit.
8. The principal contention of the Plaintiff is that the recital " SUBJECT
TO MEERUT JURISDICTION " contained in the invoice does not contain
the word "only", "alone", "exclusive" or any equivalent word of exclusion.
Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in A.B.C.
Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163, wherein it
was observed that as regards construction of the ouster clause when words
like 'alone' , 'only' , 'exclusive' and the like have been used there may be no
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 5 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
difficulty and even without such words in appropriate cases the maxim
' expressio unius est exclusion alterius ' - expression of one is the exclusion of
another may be applied. It is contended that the Apex Court has held that
what is an appropriate case shall depend on the facts of the case. Reliance
has also been placed on the Judgment passed by this Court in Baldev Steel
Ltd. v. Empire Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 2001 SCC OnLine Del
477, wherein it has been held that merely because one of the standard
printed terms of the quotation, mentioned, subject to "Bombay Jurisdiction",
it cannot exclude the Delhi Jurisdiction as it was not an exclusionary clause.
9. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on
record.
10. There is no written contract between the parties. The invoice is the
only contract. The invoices clearly stipulate “SUBJECT TO MEERUT
JURISDICTION”. The short question which arises for consideration in the
present Application is as to whether this recital would exclude jurisdiction of
this Court or not.
11. Issues have yet not been framed and, therefore, the Suit is at a nascent
stage. The objection of jurisdiction has been taken at the first instance. It is
well settled that objection of territorial jurisdiction has to be taken at the
earliest opportunity. The Apex Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF
Universal Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 7 SCC 791, has observed as under:-
“ 30 . We are unable to uphold the contention. The
jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several
categories. The important categories are (i) territorial
or local jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniary jurisdiction; and
(iii) jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as
territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned,
objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the
earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 6 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on
the point that if such objection is not taken at the
earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a
subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter,
however, is totally distinct and stands on a different
footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the
subject-matter of the suit by reason of any limitation
imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot
take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court
having no jurisdiction is a nullity.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Since the Defendants No.1 to 5 have raised the objection of territorial
jurisdiction at the first opportunity, this Court is inclined to proceed further
to adjudicate the present Application.
13. It is well settled that a decree passed by a court acting without
jurisdiction is a nullity. It is equally well settled that parties can, by
agreement, confine themselves to more than one court, if more than one
courts have jurisdiction. The Apex Court in EXL Careers v. Frankfinn
Aviation Services (P) Ltd., 2020 (12) SCC 667, has observed as under:-
“ 12 . It is no more res integra that in a dispute between
parties where two or more courts may have
jurisdiction, it is always open for them by agreement to
confer exclusive jurisdiction by consent on one of the
two courts. Clause 16-B of the agreement extracted
above leaves us in no doubt that the parties clearly
indicated that it was only the court at Delhi which
shall have exclusive jurisdiction with regard to any
dispute concerning the franchise agreement and no
other court would have jurisdiction over the same. In
that view of the matter, the presentation of the plaint at
Gurgaon was certainly not before a court having
jurisdiction in the matter. This Court considering a
similar clause restricting jurisdiction by consent in
Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 7 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
[Swastik Gases (P) Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,
(2013) 9 SCC 32 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 157] , observed
as follows: (SCC pp. 47-48, para 32)
“32. … It is a fact that whilst providing for
jurisdiction clause in the agreement the words like
“alone”, “only”, “exclusive” or “exclusive
jurisdiction” have not been used but this, in our
view, is not decisive and does not make any material
difference. The intention of the parties—by having
Clause 18 in the agreement—is clear and
unambiguous that the courts at Kolkata shall have
jurisdiction which means that the courts at Kolkata
alone shall have jurisdiction. It is so because for
construction of jurisdiction clause, like Clause 18 in
the agreement, the maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius comes into play as there is nothing
to indicate to the contrary. This legal maxim means
that expression of one is the exclusion of another. By
making a provision that the agreement is subject to
the jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata, the parties
have impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other
courts. Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction
of the courts at a particular place and such courts
have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we think
that an inference may be drawn that parties intended
to exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not
hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such
clause is neither forbidden by law nor it is against
the public policy. It does not offend Section 28 of the
Contract Act in any manner.”
14. Further, the Apex Court in Swastik Gases Private Limited v. Indian
Oil Corporation Limited, 2013 (9) SCC 32 , has observed as under:-
“ 32 . For answer to the above question, we have to see
the effect of the jurisdiction clause in the agreement
which provides that the agreement shall be subject to
jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata. It is a fact that
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 8 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
whilst providing for jurisdiction clause in the
agreement the words like “alone”, “only”,
“exclusive” or “exclusive jurisdiction” have not been
used but this, in our view, is not decisive and does not
make any material difference. The intention of the
parties—by having Clause 18 in the agreement—is
clear and unambiguous that the courts at Kolkata shall
have jurisdiction which means that the courts at
Kolkata alone shall have jurisdiction. It is so because
for construction of jurisdiction clause, like Clause 18
in the agreement, the maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius comes into play as there is nothing to
indicate to the contrary. This legal maxim means that
expression of one is the exclusion of another. By
making a provision that the agreement is subject to the
jurisdiction of the courts at Kolkata, the parties have
impliedly excluded the jurisdiction of other courts.
Where the contract specifies the jurisdiction of the
courts at a particular place and such courts have
jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we think that an
inference may be drawn that parties intended to
exclude all other courts. A clause like this is not hit by
Section 23 of the Contract Act at all. Such clause is
neither forbidden by law nor it is against the public
policy. It does not offend Section 28 of the Contract Act
in any manner.” (emphasis supplied)
15. In the opinion of this Court, the matter stands squarely covered by the
aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court.
16. Though the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex
Court in A.B.C. Laminart (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the said
Judgment actually goes against the Plaintiff. Undoubtedly, in para 21 of the
said Judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:
“ 21 . From the foregoing decisions it can be reasonably
deduced that where such an ouster clause occurs, it is
pertinent to see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 9 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
of other courts. When the clause is clear, unambiguous
and specific accepted notions of contract would bind
the parties and unless the absence of ad idem can be
shown, the other courts should avoid exercising
jurisdiction. As regards construction of the ouster
clause when words like “alone”, “only”, “exclusive”
and the like have been used there may be no difficulty.
Even without such words in appropriate cases the
maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” —
expression of one is the exclusion of another — may be
applied. What is an appropriate case shall depend on
the facts of the case. In such a case mention of one
thing may imply exclusion of another. When certain
jurisdiction is specified in a contract an intention to
exclude all others from its operation may in such cases
be inferred. It has therefore to be properly construed.”
17. However, in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court after
A.B.C. Laminart (supra), it is now settled that the words „only‟, „exclusive‟,
etc. are of no consequence. The invoices were raised in Meerut, and stipulate
that the disputes will be subject to Meerut jurisdiction. The Defendants
accepted the goods with this stipulation and, therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, the jurisdiction of this Court stands clearly excluded. Accordingly, the
present Application stands allowed.
18. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is not
discussing the other judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court, on which reliance has been placed by the Plaintiff, as the law laid
down by the Apex Court would bind all the courts.
19. Accordingly, the Plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the
CPC. It is open for the Plaintiff to file the Suit in the court of competent
jurisdiction.
20. The Suit stands disposed of, along with pending application(s), if any.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 10 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30
21. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the
merits of the case.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AUGUST 31, 2026
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 161/2026 Page 11 of 11
Signed By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:21:30