A suit claiming jurisdiction based on receipt of termination notice is invalid if the associated contract's termination occurs outside the jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an ad interim order of injunction passed in connection with a suit instituted by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the following reliefs:

“a) Decree for Declaration that the defendant is responsible and duty bound to give access to run the business in compliance of the agreement dated 28.02.2025 executed between the plaintiff no. 1 & defendant.

b) Decree for Declaration that the defendant is liable to pay penalty and compensation for late/delayed payment and for restraining the plaintiff to run the business as per agreement.

c) Interim order to pay 50% amount by calculating average payment made on last few months through invoice and book basis for passing daily life of the plaintiffs and restrain the defendant from creating any third party interest in respect of the portion i.e. basement one club; name GOLD at J.W. Marriot, Kolkata.

d) Cost of the suit;

e) Such other relief or reliefs which the Plaintiff is entitled to get in law and in equity.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the learned Trial Judge, while granting ad interim injunction, failed to consider that the learned Trial Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to take up the matter.

3. It is pointed out that the premise of the reliefs sought in the plaint is an agreement entered into between the parties on February 28, 2025. By virtue of the said agreement, the plaintiffs were to render certain services to the defendants, who run a hotel from a premises at J.B.S. Haldane Avenue, Tangra, Police Station – Pragati Maidan, Kolkata - 700105.

4. It is submitted that the first relief sought in the suit is a decree for declaration that the defendant is responsible and duty bound to give access to run the business in compliance of such agreement.

5. As such, the plinth of the suit is premised around the location where the business was being run by the plaintiffs. Such location being beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Judge ought to have rejected the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

6. Secondly, it is argued that the suit is, in the garb of a declaratory suit, one for specific performance of contract. Since the genesis of the suit is a service contract, such a suit for specific performance does not lie, for which the plaintiffs have indirectly sought to obtain reliefs which they could not get directly.

7. Thirdly, it is contended by the appellant that the only basis on which jurisdiction has been claimed to be within the City Civil Court at Calcutta, the learned Trial Court, is that the email by which the contract was terminated was received by the plaintiffs within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, at their office on Old Court House Street.

8. However, learned counsel for the appellant relies on Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. reported at (1994) 4 SCC 711 to argue that the receipt of such communication and the location thereof is immaterial to ascertain the territorial jurisdiction of the court taking up the suit.

9. Going by both Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the City Civil Court did not have jurisdiction, since it is the Alipore Judges’ Court which has territorial jurisdiction to take up the matter, according to the police station of the location of the appellant’s hotel.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the reliefs sought in the suit are primarily touching the immovable property, which is situated outside the