HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI V. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. (2005) 7 SCC 791
Reva Gupta, Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
Brief Facts:
I. The appellant (Harshad Chiman) entered into a “plot buyer agreement” with respondent (DLF) for purchase of a residential plot that was situated in Gurgaon, Haryana.
II. [1]The agreement was entered between Harshad Chiman and DLF in Delhi. The agreement was in the Standard Form Contract. The head office of respondent was situated in Delhi. Payment was to be made in Delhi for the entered agreement. According to the aforesaid agreement it was specifically provided under Clause 28 that the transaction would be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court.
III. The appellant made the payments to respondent as per the schedule of agreement and in the said manner that was prescribed in agreement. Every instalment was made by appellant to respondent despite all this, the agreement was unilaterally and illegally cancelled by the respondent on different grounds.
IV. To resolve this dispute the original suit was filed in Court of Delhi by appellant for the following reliefs: · Declaration · Specific Performance of the agreement · For possession of Property · For permanent injunction. Defendant contended against the appellant by filing an application to amend the written statement by contending on the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to hear the present suit under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court accepted the said contention of defendant on the grounds that suit was for recovery of immovable property and the property was situated in Gurgaon, as per Section 16 of CPC this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case at hand.
V. Aggrieved by the said order of Delhi Court appellant filed a revision petition in Delhi High Court which was also dismissed by the court and held the decision of Delhi Court as valid and directed the appellant to bring the matter in the proper court that have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same was transferred to District court of Delhi.
VI. Aggrieved by the order of High Court appellant filed a special leave against the said order in the Supreme court of India. The present case was tabled by Apex court to resolve the aforesaid question on matter of jurisdiction and prayer that is pleaded by appellant.
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1916513/
Comments