9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 658 - SC - Companies LawDefault in repayment of Bank s dues - Assignment of claim in favour of Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited - Whether the present suit is suit for land - Matter of High court jurisdiction - Jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear - Held that - The suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to the title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property, See Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (9) TMI 1123 - SUPREME COURT . Further it is an established rule that to determine whether it is a suit for land, the Court will look into barely the Plaint and no other evidence, Indian Mineral & Chemicals Co. and Others 2004 (6) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT . If by the averments in the plaint and prayers therein, it appears that the suit is one for land, it shall be so held and if it does not so appear, then the suit shall continue under leave granted under clause 12. It may be noted that the sale certificate sought under the prayer requires the delivery of possession of the suit property. Thus, we find that the prayer for delivery of possession was an implicit one in the present case. The prayer as sought in the plaint could not have been granted without the delivery of possession of the suit property as the sale certificate itself contemplates the delivery of the immovable property. Thus, in view of this we find that the Adcon Electronics 2001 (9) TMI 1123 - SUPREME COURT would not apply as there was a prayer for delivery of possession in the present case. Therefore, we hold that the present suit was indeed a suit for land. Matter of Jurisdiction - This Court in Swastik Gases P. Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 642 - SUPREME COURT , has held that The very existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties to an agreement quite clear and it is not advisable to read such a clause in the agreement like a statute. In the present case, only the Courts in Kolkata had jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between the parties. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Courts of Mumbai were granted exclusive jurisdiction as per the Agreement and we find no reason to create any exception to the intention of the parties. In view of the above-mentioned two findings that the present suit is a suit for land, and that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Mumbai, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta is clearly ousted as per law. Thus, from the above conclusion it appears that the plaint will have to be returned by the Calcutta High Court as it does not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, we are of the view that the question of jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal need not be answered. - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for specific performance filed by Excel was a "suit for land"? 2. Whether the Private Treaty Agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Mumbai, and if so, whether ARCIL waived this clause by participating in the impleadment application without protest? 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in the present case by virtue of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act? Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Suit for Land The Supreme Court examined Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Calcutta, which pertains to the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court noted that a suit for land is one in which the relief claimed relates to the title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. The Court referenced the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat and Anr., which established that a suit for specific performance without a prayer for delivery of possession is not a suit for land. However, in this case, the prayer in the plaint sought a decree for specific performance of the Agreement by directing the defendants to issue a Sale Certificate in respect of the assets mentioned. The Court found that the issuance of a Sale Certificate under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002, inherently involves the delivery of possession of the property. Therefore, the prayer for delivery of possession was implicit in the plaint. Consequently, the Court held that the present suit was indeed a suit for land. Issue 2: Exclusive Jurisdiction The Agreement between the parties included clauses that conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Mumbai. Clause 5 stated, "The payment/cheque shall be drawn and made payable in Mumbai. The jurisdiction shall be Courts of Mumbai." Clause 9(e)(viii) further specified, "Disputes, if any, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Court/Tribunals only." The Supreme Court cited the case of Swastik Gases P. Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., which held that the existence of a jurisdiction clause in an agreement makes the intention of the parties clear and should not be read like a statute. The Court concluded that the parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Courts of Mumbai and found no reason to deviate from this intention. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta was ousted by the Agreement. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Civil Court Given the conclusions on the first two issues, the Supreme Court deemed it unnecessary to address the question of whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred by Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was clearly ousted, and the plaint would have to be returned as the Calcutta High Court did not have jurisdiction. Conclusion The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit for specific performance was indeed a suit for land and that the parties had conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts of Mumbai. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court was ousted, and the plaint would have to be returned. The parties were advised to proceed in an appropriate forum as provided by law to enforce their rights.
|
