Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited, was the original defendant No.1 in Short Cause Suit No.818 of 2011 filed by respondent No.1, M/s. Morex Petrochem Private Limited, in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. The suit sought a declaration that the defendant No.1 had no right to implement an exit policy contrary to the terms of an agreement dated 21st July 2005, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from implementing any such exit policy retrospectively. The defendant No.1 had been leased a plot of land in Surat Special Economic Zone, Sachin, Surat, for 99 years, and had granted a sublease to the plaintiff on 21st July 2005. A dispute arose regarding the exit policy framed by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, contending that the property was in Surat and no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court decided the preliminary issue against the defendant No.1, holding that the court had jurisdiction. The defendant No.1 then filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging that order. The High Court examined the plaint allegations and found that the sublease agreement was executed in Mumbai, the defendant No.1's office was in Mumbai, and the exit policy was framed in Mumbai. Therefore, part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, and the City Civil Court had jurisdiction. The court also noted that the suit was for declaration and injunction, not for recovery of immovable property, so the place where the property was situated was not the sole determinant of jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction - Preliminary Issue - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the City Civil Court, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction over a suit relating to a sublease agreement for property in Surat. The plaintiff sought declaration and injunction regarding an exit policy. The court held that the suit was not barred by lack of jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose in Mumbai, including the execution of the sublease agreement and the defendant's office being in Mumbai. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City Civil Court, Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and injunction in respect of a sublease agreement concerning property situated in Surat.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the order of the City Civil Court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- Section 115 CPC
- preliminary issue
- cause of action
- territorial jurisdiction
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 62
Civil Revision Application No.546 of 2012
Mr. Anil C Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul S Singh for the Applicant; Mr. A M Saraogi for the Respondent No.1.
Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited
M/s. Morex Petrochem Private Limited & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application challenging the order of the City Civil Court deciding a preliminary issue on jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (original defendant No.1) sought to set aside the order of the City Civil Court which held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that the City Civil Court, Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction as the property was in Surat and no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai decided the preliminary issue on 09/05/2012 holding that the court had jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the City Civil Court, Mumbai has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration and injunction in respect of a sublease agreement concerning property in Surat.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the property is situated in Surat, the sublease agreement was executed in Surat, and no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, hence the City Civil Court, Mumbai lacks jurisdiction.
The respondent argued that the sublease agreement was executed in Mumbai, the defendant No.1's office is in Mumbai, and the exit policy was framed in Mumbai, thus part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for declaration and injunction, the place where the property is situated is not the sole determinant of jurisdiction. Part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai as the sublease agreement was executed there and the defendant's office is located there, giving the City Civil Court, Mumbai jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge has decided the preliminary issue and has come to a conclusion that the said Court would have jurisdiction.
The suit has been filed inter alia for the following substantive reliefs...
The Defendant No.1 was leased out a plot of land bearing No.44 situated at Surat Special Economic Zone, Sachin, Tal. Choryasi, Dist. Surat (SurSEZ).
The sublease which was executed in favour of the Plaintiff was in terms of the extant policy of the Central Government at the relevant time.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No.818 of 2011 in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai. The defendant No.1 raised a preliminary issue on jurisdiction. The learned Judge decided the issue on 09/05/2012 holding that the court has jurisdiction. The defendant No.1 filed Civil Revision Application No.546 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay challenging that order. The High Court dismissed the revision application on 01/03/2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115
