9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor of the said wind-mills. 2. The respondent has filed the suit for recovery of unpaid lease rentals as also for return of the wind-mills which were subject-matter of the lease agreement specifically in view of termination of the lease agreement as a consequence of the respondents not having paid the amounts in terms of the lease agreements. The parties to the present appeal had entered into a lease agreement dated 28-3-1995 in respect of the wind-mills to be installed at Mupandal, Kanyakumari in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said wind-mills were delivered and installed and were used by the appellant. The appellant, however, only paid the first four instalments regularly, being quarterly instalments, and thereafter informed the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enior counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge has not correctly applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd v. Church of South India Trust Association AIR 1992 SC 1439 insofar as the application of the provisions of section 22 are concerned. It is Mr. Chandhiok s contention that facts of Shree Chamundi Mopeds case applied to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case as it related to leased premises, the lease of which had been terminated but the occupation continued as a result of the protection granted under Karnataka Rent Control Act. Mr. Chandhiok specifically referred to paras 13 and 15 of the said judgment. It was further contended that subsequent judgments of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in the courts at Pune for damages arising from the lease agreement. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent referred to the memorandum of understanding dated 10-1-1998 executed between the parties and contended that the question of any grievances in respect of the functioning of the wind-mills against the respondent sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the appel lant did not arise in view of the said memorandum of understanding whereby the respondent had agreed to pay the balance lease rentals and the appellant had agreed to withdraw the proceedings filed at Pune. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. Thus, the only question to be considered by us is whether the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is the courts at Pune alone which would have jurisdiction. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, con- tended that it was the lessee alone who was bound by the clause to the effect that all legal proceedings shall be instituted in the courts at Pune which courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction but the said restriction did not apply to the lessor, i.e., the respondent. 12. It cannot be disputed that the courts both at Pune and at Delhi would be the courts which would have jurisdiction but for any ouster clause. Thus, what has to be considered is whether clause 11.6 aforesaid excluded the jurisdiction of all other competent courts and conferred jurisdiction alone on the courts at Pune. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
