Territorial Jurisdiction: To Situate, Or To Be Situated? An Analysis On Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
- IJLLR Journal
- May 30
- 2 min read
Aditi Naik, Jindal Global Law School
Facts:
A "plot buyer agreement" was signed on August 14, 1985, between DLF Universal Ltd. and Anr., the respondent in the present case (henceforth referred to as the "respondent"), the first defendant, and the original plaintiff, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi, the appellant in the present case (henceforth referred to as the "appellant"). The arrangement was for the acquisition of a Gurgaon, Haryana, residential land. This agreement was allegedly negotiated and finalized in Delhi and was in the Standard Form Contract of the first respondent, according to the appellant. Additionally, the agreement stated that the first respondent's head office was located in Delhi, where all payments were to be made.
One of the most important clauses in the agreement was Clause 28, which made it clear that the Delhi courts would have jurisdiction over any legal issues resulting from the purchase. The appellant believed that this condition would allow the Delhi courts to decide any disagreements pertaining to the agreement, including those affecting the acquisition of the residential land. But when the appellant's payment to the second defendant became a source of disagreement, things got complicated.
According to the respondent, the appellant's unilateral and, according to the appellant, unjust termination of the agreement was caused by the appellant's failure to provide the second defendant with the required payments. The appellant filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court after this termination in an attempt to pursue legal action. Three main remedies were sought in the appellant's suit: (1) a permanent injunction to stop the agreement from being canceled; (2) specific performance of the agreement, which would require the respondent to abide by the provisions of the contract; and (3) possession of the contested property.
