SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE A.M. AHMADI, M. M. PUNCHHI AND N. VENKATACHALA. JJ.)
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER
Versus
VINAY ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal Nos. 5230-31 of 1993, decided on September 27, 1993.
Jurisdiction - High Court of Calcutta - Abuse of Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, and the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. The respondent, a Calcutta-based firm, moved the Calcutta High Court despite no part of the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of that Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Calcutta exercised jurisdiction where it had none, leading to a case of abuse of jurisdiction. The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the proceedings initiated in the High Court of Calcutta were directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation in the proper court. The respondent was also directed to pay the hearing cost.
Issues: Abuse of jurisdiction by the High Court of Calcutta
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the High Court of Calcutta had no jurisdiction in the case and that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court despite no part of the cause of action arising within its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the proceedings initiated in the High Court of Calcutta were directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation in the proper court. The respondent was also directed to pay the hearing cost.
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is a case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable.
3. In the result we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and direct that the proceedings initiated in the High Court of Calcutta shall be returned to the respondent for presentation in proper court. The hearing cost is quantified at Rs 10,000 which Respondent 1 Vinay Engineering will pay, in any case before the application is presented to the Aligarh Court.
For Citation : 1994 4 SCC 710
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.