Jiwan Kumar Goel Vs. M/S. Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Jiwan Kumar Goel vs M/S. Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 01, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1154051

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1154051
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Jul 01, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jiwan Kumar Goel

Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar

Respondent

M/S. Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....the suit cannot be filed at the place where the registered office of the company is situated unless the cause of action accrues at the registered office.3. in the present case, the appellant/plaintiff/employee was employed at noida in u.p. the appellant/employee worked as an employee at noida in u.p. the appellant/employee was paid at noida in u.p. therefore, entire cause of action accrues at noida in u.p. and not at delhi where the suit was filed.4. learned counsel for the appellant argues that there was no written statement on record however it is noted that there is an application which is filed by the respondent/defendant under order 7 rule 11 cpc and which is replied to by the appellant/plaintiff. a conjoint reading of the pleadings in this application read with order 12 rule 6 cpc and the judgment of the supreme court in the case of uttam singh dugal & co. ltd. vs. united bank of india and ors. (2000) 7 scc120leads us to the conclusion that even the admissions in the pleadings in the interim application can be considered for the purpose of order 12 rule 6 cpc.5. i did put to the counsel for the appellant that there is no reason why appellant should be time and again burdened with expenditure whether towards court fee or lawyer’s fee when the law has been made clear by the supreme court way back in the year 1992, however, counsel for the appellant does not seem to appreciate the legal position.6. in view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. july01 2014 ne fao no.165/2014

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No.165/2014 1st July , 2014 % JIWAN KUMAR GOEL Through: ......Appellant Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate. VERSUS M/S. CIVITECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Through: ...... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) C.M. No.10205/2014 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. + FAO No.165/2014 2. Supreme Court twenty two years back in the judgment in the case of M/s. Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company AIR 1992 SC1514clarified with respect to Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with its Explanation that when a suit is filed against a company, the suit cannot be filed at the place where the registered office of the company is situated unless the cause of action accrues at the registered office.

3. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff/employee was employed at Noida in U.P. The appellant/employee worked as an employee at Noida in U.P. The appellant/employee was paid at Noida in U.P. Therefore, entire cause of action accrues at Noida in U.P. and not at Delhi where the suit was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there was no written statement on record however it is noted that there is an application which is filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and which is replied to by the appellant/plaintiff. A conjoint reading of the pleadings in this application read with Order 12 Rule 6 CPC and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd. Vs. United Bank of India and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC120leads us to the conclusion that even the admissions in the pleadings in the interim application can be considered for the purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

5. I did put to the counsel for the appellant that there is no reason why appellant should be time and again burdened with expenditure whether towards Court fee or lawyer’s fee when the law has been made clear by the Supreme Court way back in the year 1992, however, counsel for the appellant does not seem to appreciate the legal position.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JULY01 2014 Ne FAO No.165/2014

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Jiwan Kumar Goel vs M/S. Civitech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta

Land Acquisition Registered office Written statement cause of action civil procedure With respect to supreme court