IN THE COURT OF LD.
SWATI GUPTA-I, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IA No. _____OF 2024
IN
CS SCJ 1700/22
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Delhivery Limited ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Newtech Buildhome Private Limited ...Defendant
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER
VII RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the above-mentioned plaint has been filed by the
Plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 2,92,426.92/- (Rupees Two
Lakh Ninety-Two Thousand And Four Hundred Twenty Six
and Ninety Two Paise Only) along with interest against the
Defendant. The Defendant vehemently denies the
contents of the claims made in the plaint, asserting that the
suit is frivolous, baseless, and without merit. It is submitted
that the plaint is an abuse of the process of law and liable to
be rejected in limine, as it lacks any substantial cause of action
and is filed in a court that lacks territorial jurisdiction. The next
date of hearing in this matter is 15.10.2024.
2. That the Defendant, aggrieved by the institution of this false
and frivolous plaint, which is barred by law, is filing this
application for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"). It is
submitted herein that the suit needs to be rejected at the
threshold on the following grounds:
Grounds for Rejection of the Plaint:
3. Non-payment of Appropriate Court Fees
The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b)
and (c) of the Code for want of appropriate court fees. The
Plaintiff has incorrectly paid a court fee of ₹2,550/- for a suit
valued at ₹2,92,426.92/-, while the required court fee is
₹5,223/-. The plaint, therefore, suffers from a material defect
and is liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the
statutory requirement.
4. Lack of Disclosure of a Cause of Action
The plaint does not disclose any valid cause of action against
the Defendant. The Plaintiff, in a vague and ambiguous
manner, claims in Paragraph 10 of the plaint that the cause of
action arose on various dates when the Plaintiff requested the
Defendant to repay certain dues. The Plaintiff has simply in
para no. 10 of the plaint stated as under:
“That the cause of action arose on various
dates when the plaintiff requested the
defendant to repay the plaintiff's dues. That the
cause of action is thus a continuing one and
had been arising repeatedly over a course of
duration.”
However, no specific instances or details of such requests have
been provided. The plaint lacks any factual basis to establish a
genuine cause of action that would justify the relief sought by
the Plaintiff. Hence, it fails to meet the essential requirement
of disclosing a cause of action, making it liable for rejection
under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code.
5. Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction
The plaint is further liable to be rejected at the threshold under
Order VII Rule 11(d) for being barred by law as being a
demurrer’s claim due to the lack of territorial jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court. The primary principle governing the issue
with respect of territorial jurisdiction is “equity acts in
personam” which has been incorporated under Section 20
of the CPC As per Section 20 of the Code, suits must be
instituted where the Defendant resides, carries on business, or
where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. In the
present case, the Defendant's place of business is in
Hyderabad, as acknowledged in Paragraph 3 of the plaint and
reflected in the annexures (Annexure A-4 and A-5). The Plaintiff
has falsely asserted in Paragraph 13 that the cause of action
arose in Delhi without providing any substantive proof or
agreement to that effect. Further, under the Explanation to
Section 20, a corporation is deemed to carry on business at its
principal or sole office unless the cause of action arises at a
subordinate office. In the present case, the defendant is based
in Hyderabad, and the Annexures A-4 and A-5 on record
confirms that the cause of action also arose in Hyderabad
since the invoice has been generated by the subordinate office
of the Plaintiff situated in Hyderabad to the office of the
Defendant situated in Hyerabad. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court
lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
6. The pleadings in plaint under Para 13 with respect to
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is being
reproduced herein below:
“That the parties to the suit executed all the
documents at Unit Nos. N2.4-N3.4, S24-S34, Air
Cargo Logistics Centre-II, Opposite Gate 6
Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi -
110037. The plaintiff resides and works for gain
at Delhi, and the cause of action arose in Delhi,
hence the Hon'ble Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain, try, and decide the
present suit of the plaintiff.”
Upon perusal of Para 13 of the plaint, it is evident that the
Plaintiff, in an attempt to establish the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court, has falsely and improperly claimed that all
documents related to the suit were executed in New Delhi.
The Plaintiff has conveniently refrained from submitting
the alleged agreement that forms the basis of their claim
in this matter. In the absence of any agreement on record,
it is inconceivable how this Hon’ble Court could possess
the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.
The Plaintiff has deliberately misled this Hon’ble Court by
falsely conferring jurisdiction and, in doing so, has wasted
the valuable judicial time of this Hon’ble Court. As such,
the plaint is liable to be rejected, and the Plaintiff should
be burdened with heavy costs for its misuse of the legal
process.
7. Suppression of Material Facts
Without prejudice to foregoing paragraphs, it is submitted
herein that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is entirely based
on a concocted and fabricated story, where the Plaintiff
has intentionally concealed and suppressed material facts
in an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The Plaintiff
has filed the present suit without any legitimate cause of
action. It is, therefore, imperative for the Defendant to
place before this Hon'ble Court the true and relevant facts,
necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, and to
demonstrate the falsehoods presented by the Plaintiff in
the plaint:
a) The defendant was engaged in taking services of Plaintiff
Company for the purpose of using its logistics services.
For this purpose, the Defendant had handed over 433
packages to the Plaintiff Company to deliver at various
locations in India, with 312 packages to be delivered to
Bangalore.
b) As per the agreed terms, the packages were handed over
to the plaintiff’s team on 19.09.2021.
c) The Plaintiff assured and committed to delivering the
packages within two days, i.e., by 21.09.2021.
d) It is submitted herein that as of 22.09.2021, the Plaintiff
had delivered only 124 packages out of the total 433
packages.
e) Vide email dated 22.09.2024, the Defendant herein
informed the Plaintiff of their material breach, and
conveyed that the remaining 309 packages are still
marked as "in transit," including most of the Bangalore
consignments. It was also informed that the delay has
tarnished the hotel's reputation with its customers and
resulted in financial losses for the Defendant.
f) Again, vide email dated 24.09.2021 the Defendant herein
informed the Plaintiff that packages were still not
delivered and that the Plaintiff company had stopped
responding to the calls of the defendant also. It was also
conveyed to the Plaintiff that the promised/expected date
of delivery has expired and asked the plaintiff herein to
send its representative to discuss about the services.
g) The defendant's decision to work with plaintiff was based
on a two-day delivery commitment, which was not
honoured. Pursuant to which, the defendant had been
actively following up on the issue but did not receive the
necessary support from Plaintiff.
h) On 26.09.2021, the defendant again sent an email
showcasing that Plaintiff’s services remained
unsatisfactory, leading to significant delays in the
delivery of the consignments. It was also informed that
the online tracking system displayed incorrect status
updates, further complicating the situation. As a result of
these delays, the plaintiff's company incurred substantial
losses, amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs, as all the packages in
question were delayed, causing irreparable harm to their
business operations.
i) This material breach of contract by the Plaintiff to
deliver within the stipulated time period, which was
explicitly agreed to be essential to the contract, is a
material breach of contract by the Plaintiff.
j) It is an undisputed fact that in a logistics service
agreement, timely delivery is not merely a
contractual obligation but the most essential factor
for determining whether the terms of the agreement
have been honoured. The Plaintiff cannot absolve
itself of liability for failing to adhere to this vital
condition, and yet, it has made no mention of its
failure in the plaint, further demonstrating its intent
to suppress material facts.
k) The Plaintiff has intentionally concealed the fact that
it failed to deliver the consignment as per the
agreed-upon terms and timelines. This suppression
of material facts, crucial to the adjudication of the
suit, is in itself a sufficient ground for the rejection of
the plaint.
l) The Plaintiff has failed to disclose that its failure to
perform under the agreement resulted in substantial
monetary losses and reputational harm to the
Defendant.
8. Absence of Supporting Agreement:
Moreover, in a further act of suppression, the Plaintiff has
failed to annex the agreement upon which it has relied so
extensively in the plaint. The absence of this critical
document, which is essential to establish the Plaintiff's
entitlement to the relief claimed, clearly shows the Plaintiff's
intent to mislead this Hon’ble Court. In light of this omission,
the suit is based on conjecture and without merit, making the
plaint liable to rejection.
In view of the above, it is evident that the plaint is frivolous,
vexatious, and has been filed with the sole intention of harassing the
Defendant. The Plaintiff has suppressed material facts, failed to
disclose a valid cause of action, and filed the suit in a court without
proper jurisdiction. As such, the plaint is liable to be rejected under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to:
(a) Reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908;
(b) Award exemplary costs against the plaintiff for misusing the
judicial process, causing undue harassment to the defendants, and
wasting the valuable time of this Hon'ble Court;
(c) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.
DEFENDANT
THROUGH
ASHISH VERMA
(D/2183/2005)
SAAR ASSOCIATES
AVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS
F-5, LAJPAT NAGAR-III,
NEW DELHI-110024
Mobile: +91-9871603434
Email: ashish@saarassociates.in
New Delhi
Date:
IN THE COURT OF LD. SWATI GUPTA-I, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IA No. _____OF 2024
IN
CS SCJ 1700/22
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/s Delhivery Limited ...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Newtech Buildhome Private Limited ...Defendant
AFFIDAVIT
I, Vaibhav Sagar, S/o ________________ aged about _____years,
the Authorized representative of the Defendant Company
having its office at M-210, 2 nd Floor, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi-
110052, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. I am the Authorized Representative of the defendant
company in the above named case, and as such, I am well
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this
Affidavit and depose as to its contents.
2. That I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying Application and affirm the contents are
based on the official records maintained by the Defendant
Company and believed to be correct.
3. That the contents of the present affidavit are true and
correct and nothing material has been concealed.
DEPONENT
Verified at New Delhi _______ day of October 2024 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct and nothing
material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
