The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order that had returned a recovery suit filed by a logistics company for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that several parts of the dispute were connected to Delhi and therefore Delhi courts were competent to hear the matter.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the judgment in GAC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Acer Logistics Pvt. Ltd., observing that even if only part of the cause of action arises within a court’s territory, that court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recovery suit filed by GAC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. against Acer Logistics Pvt. Ltd. over alleged unpaid dues linked to shipment and freight forwarding services. The plaintiff claimed that more than Rs. 14 lakh was payable along with interest.
According to the plaintiff, consignments were booked under an oral arrangement between the parties. The company alleged that several post-dated cheques issued towards payment were dishonoured. A legal notice was later sent before the suit was filed.
However, the trial court returned the plaint, holding that the cause of action related to Mumbai and not Delhi.
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant argued that significant parts of the transaction had taken place in Delhi. These included handing over consignments, maintaining accounts, receiving payments, and presenting cheques for encashment.
The Court noted that the defendant company’s registered office was located in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, while the Mumbai address mentioned in invoices was merely an administrative office.
Justice Ohri observed that the unrebutted evidence on record showed that payments were received in Delhi and the cheques were presented through a Delhi bank account. The Court also noted that the defendant never appeared before the trial court to contest these claims.
“The pleadings and evidence led by the plaintiff therefore remained unrebutted,” the Court recorded while concluding that part of the cause of action had clearly arisen in Delhi.
The High Court further stated that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, courts must proceed on the basis of the averments made in the plaint and cannot reject unrebutted pleadings merely on assumptions.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order returning the plaint. The Court restored the recovery suit to its original position and directed that it be listed before the trial court on May 28, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: GAC Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Acer Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: FAO 371/2024
Judge: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Decision Date: May 20, 2026
