Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 263

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Mahehswari, JJ.
Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. And Anr. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2554-2555 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19777-19778 of 2017)
Decided on : 07-03-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :K.V. Viswanathan, Sr.Adv., Mainak Bose, Amitabh Ray, S.Sukumaran, Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Pathak, Ms.Meera Mathur, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Sanjiv Singh, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Faisal Sherwani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 8 Rule 1 – Framing of issue – Suit for declaration, damages and for grant of injunction – Respondents did not file any written statement and instead raised plea of territorial jurisdiction by filing application for revocation of Leave – High Court should not have entertained application and instead should have granted liberty to respondents(defendants) to file written statement in suit and to raise therein a plea of territorial jurisdiction of Court – An issue of such nature cannot be tried by filing an application for revocation of leave – Plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact – Respondents(defendants) should be allowed to raise such plea in written statement to enable Court to try it on its merits in accordance with law in light of requirements of Order 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other relevant provisions governing the issue on merits – Impugned orders set aside and liberty granted to respondents (defendants) to file their written statement in answer to plaint and raise therein plea in question along with all other pleas relating to facts and law – On such written statement being filed, Single Judge will frame appropriate issues arising in suit and proceed to answer them in accordance with law. (Paras 18 to 23)
       Facts of Case:
       Issue which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was justified in allowing respondents’ (defendants’) application and thereby was justified in revoking leave granted to appellant (plaintiff).
       Findings of Court:
       Single Judge of High Court will accordingly decide the issue strictly in accordance with law on its merits without being influenced by any observations made by him, Division Bench in impugned order and this Court.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 13.02.2017 in APOT No. 274 of 2016 and dated 02.05.2017 in RVWO No. 16 of 2017 passed by the High Court at Calcutta whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and review petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. These appeals involve a short point as would be clear from the facts stated infra.

4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which these appeals arise.

5. The appellant filed a civil suit (Civil Suit No. 88/2016) against the respondents for a declaration, damages and for grant of injunction etc. in the High Court at Calcutta on its original side.

6. The suit was filed inter alia for a declaration that the termination of two agreements dated 11.07.2007 and 21.05.2008 made by respondent No. 1 was wrongful and, therefore, both the agreements be declared as being bad in law. The other reliefs claimed in the suit were consequential in nature to the main relief.

7. The appellant (plaintiff) also filed an application and sought leave to file the civil suit as required under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, 1865. The Single Judge by order dated 18.03.2016 granted leave to the appellant as prayed for.

8. The respondents, on entering their appearance in the suit, filed an application and prayed therein for revocation of the leave granted to the appellant (plaintiff) for filing a civil suit by order dated 18.03.2016.

9. The respondents-defendants, in substance, sought revocation of leave on the ground that since no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court but it arose at Bangalore and hence the civil suit could not have been filed in Calcutta High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction. It was, therefore, prayed that the leave granted to the appellant to file and prosecute the civil suit in the Calcutta High Court(original side) is liable to be revoked.

10. The appellant (plaintiff) also filed their reply and contested the said application. By order dated 28.07.2016, the Single Judge allowed the application of the respondents (defendants) and revoked the leave. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Single Judge, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the appellant (plaintiff) in this Court.

11. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) was justified in allowing the respondents' (defendants') application and thereby was justified in revoking the leave granted to the appellant (plaintiff) by order dated 18.03.2016.

12. Heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submissions filed by the parties, we are inclined to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned order and the order of the Single Judge dated 28.07.2016, remand the case to the Single Judge for deciding the issue in question afresh in accordance with law as directed hereinbelow.

14. The question arose as far back as in the year 1932 before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Secretary of State v. Golabrai Paliram (AIR 1932 Calcutta 146) as to how the Court should approach the application for revocation of leave when it filed in a civil suit.

15. Justice Rankin, learned the then Chief Justice, laid down the following principle of law in the case while answering this question in the following words at page 147:

"I do really protest against questions of difficulty and importance being dealt with by an application to revoke the leave

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 263

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAbhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Mahehswari, JJ.Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant(s)VersusAditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. And Anr. — Respondent(s)Civil Appeal Nos. 2554-2555 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19777-19778 of 2017)Decided on : 07-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTPlea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Mahehswari, JJ.
Isha Distribution House Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. And Anr. — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 2554-2555 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19777-19778 of 2017)
Decided on : 07-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of territorial jurisdiction is essentially a mixed question of law and fact.