Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
M/s. Serentica Renewables India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sri Basappa S/o. Yamanurappa – Respondent
Writ Petition No.102751 of 2024 (GM-CPC)
Decided on : 16-07-2024
Jurisdiction - Infrastructure Disputes - Specific Relief Act - Sections 20A, 41(ha) - The court emphasized that disputes related to infrastructure projects must be adjudicated by designated Special Courts, as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and its 2018 amendment, which restricts civil courts from granting injunctions in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the maintainability of a suit regarding an infrastructure project, claiming it lacks jurisdiction and seeks to quash an interim injunction granted by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it pertained to an infrastructure project, which should be adjudicated by a designated Special Court under the Specific Relief Act.
Issues: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit concerning an infrastructure project and grant an interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, civil courts cannot grant injunctions in infrastructure project disputes, which must be heard by designated Special Courts.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the suit is declared not maintainable.
ORDER :
Captioned petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, M/s. Serentica Renewables India Private Limited. The petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the suit registered as O.S.No.77/2024, pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron. The petitioner claims that the suit, which pertains to a dispute over an infrastructure project is not maintainable before civil Court and lacks jurisdiction, and thus has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and the interim order dated 14.03.2024.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent/plaintiff, Sri. Basappa, an agriculturist from Hosahalli, Rona Taluk, Gadag District, has filed a suit seeking an injunction against the petitioner to halt the development of a wind power project. Despite strong opposition from the petitioner, the trial court granted an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The petitioner contended that the trial Court's decision is erroneous and in violation of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.
3. The crux of the petitioner’s argument is based on the jurisdictional competence of the trial Court to entertain the suit. The petitioner submitted that the subject matter of the dispute involved an infrastructure project, which, according to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and the subsequent amendment in 2018, should be adjudicated only by a Designated Special Court. Specifically, Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act imposes a restriction on civil Courts from granting injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects. The petitioner's argument rests heavily on the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Section 20A of the Act expressly prohibits civil Courts from granting injunctions in matters related to contracts concerning infrastructure projects. Additionally, a circular dated 04.11.2020, issued by the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizes that disputes involving such projects must be resolved by Designated Special Courts, which have exclusive jurisdiction over these matters. Pleadings at para 6 and 10 are relevant and are extracted as under:
Furthermore, the petitioner relied on a circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka on 04.11.2020, which emphasized that disputes involving infrastructure projects must be heard exclusively by Designated Special Courts.
This circular was issued in the context of ensuring that such projects are not delayed by legal challenges in inappropriate forums, thereby aligning with global best practices in the enforceability of contracts circular is extracted which reads as under:
| “GOB.II. 146/2020 | HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, DATED: 04.11.2020 | |
|
| CIRCULAR | |
| Sub: Disposal of cases filed under Section 20(B) of "The Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (Amendment) Act, 2018". The Government of Karnataka vide Notification No.LAW 84 LCE 2018 dated 25.10.2019 and Corrigendum dated 03.12.2019 has designated the courts mentioned therein as Special Courts to try the suits filed under Section-20(B) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and (Amendment) Act, 2018. The Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India in the letter dated 21.10.2020 has stated that the foreign investors have been pointing out that having Dedicated Special Courts for Infrastructure Projects is a global good practice and has been immensely beneficial in the enforceability of contracts both from the perspective of time and costs thereby stimulating investors' confidence and the designated Special Courts under the said Act not being exclusive and dedicated in nature, they do not meet up to the global best practices. The High Court upon considering said letter and pendency has decided to dedicate one specific day in a week | ||
AI
Disputes involving infrastructure projects must be adjudicated by designated Special Courts, as per the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and its 2018 amendment.
The court held that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for an interim injunction, emphasizing the balance between property rights and public interest in infrastructure projects.
Point of Law : There is a delay in execution of project due to such proceedings initiated by him/it, he/they may be saddled with damages caused for delay in execution of such projects, which may be d....
Injunctions under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted if they impede infrastructure projects, especially when the party lacks ownership or lease rights to the property in question.
The amendment to Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act bars injunctions against infrastructure projects, emphasizing public interest over private claims in land disputes.
A plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant a temporary injunction, and courts cannot grant relief beyond what is sought in pleadings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred under Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, 2003, from granting any injunction in respect o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
