Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. ... Plaintiff
Versus
Jones Lang Lasalle Meghraj and Ors. ... Defendants
IA No. 14649/2007 in CS(OS) No. 2392/2007
Decided on : 8th February, 2008
Through:Mr. Bhimrao Naik, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Ameet Naik and Mr. Akshay, Advocates
Through:Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.S.Endlaw, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the nature of the relief sought in a suit for specific performance determines the court's jurisdiction under Section 16 CPC.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Specific Performance - Section 16 CPC - Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Daulat and Anr. 2001(7) SCC 698, Bhawna Seth v. DLF Universal Limited and Anr. 138(2007) DLT 639, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and Anr. (2005) 7 SCC 791, Uttam International v. Jogender Pal Singh 78(1999) DLT 254
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction against Defendants to execute lease deed for a specific area in a mall. Defendants raised objection on the territorial jurisdiction of the court under Section 16 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was seeking mandatory injunction for transfer of possession and enjoyment of immovable property, and thus, fell under the purview of Section 16 CPC. Citing relevant case laws, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction under Section 16 CPC for a suit seeking specific performance of a lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the relief sought by the Plaintiff, which was deemed to be in respect of immovable property, falling under Section 16 CPC.
Final Decision: The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned to the Plaintiff.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
1. This suit has been filed by the Plaintiff with a prayer that this Court should pass a mandatory injunction against the Defendants directing Defendants to execute lease deed in respect of 1,10,000 sq. feet of area in South Point, DLF City, Phase V, situated in Sector 53 Village Wazirabad, Gurgaon, Haryana as per draft dated 8th May, 2007 sent by Defendant No.2 and to take all consequential steps for allowing the Plaintiff to perform the Plaintiffs rights and obligations under the Lease Deed and the MoU/agreement dated 12th May, 2004
2. WS has been filed by Defendants No. 2 and 3 raising objection about the maintainability of the suit within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in view of Section 16 of CPC. I have heard the Counsel on the question of jurisdiction.
.3. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue are that Plaintiff alleges that Defendant No. 2 had agreed to grant a Lease to the Plaintiff in respect of a area of about 1,10,000 sq. feet in the above-said Mall for a period of 9 years @ Rs.39/-per sq. feet. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the parties for this purpose on 12th May, 2004, which gave details about the understanding reached between the parties. In terms of this MoU, Plaintiff handed over a cheque of Rs.1,01,000/-as token money, which amount was duly accepted and the cheque was got encashed by Defendant No. 2 at New Delhi. After execution of MoU, correspondence ensued between the parties while the construction of Mall was going on. When the construction of the Mall got completed, Defendant No. 2, by e-mail dated 5th October, 2006 forwarded a draft of formal Lease Deed to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleged that some terms of MoU were not incorporated in the draft Lease Deed, so by e-mail dated 10th October, 2006 Plaintiff requested Defendant No. 2 to incorporate all the terms of the MoU. Though the initial MoU was signed by Defendant No. 2, the draft Lease Deed sent contained the name of Defendant No. 3 also as the lessor. On enquiry Defendant No. 2 told Plaintiff that Defendant No. 3 was in possession of the property and was part of various group entities of Defendant No. 2. The Plaintiff prepared for opening its store in the Mall and incurred an expenditure of about Rs.60 lac and on the request of Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 permitted sister company of the Plaintiff to store fixtures in the premises. The Plaintiff forwarded a draft of the bank guarantee for Rs.59 lac by e-mail dated 26th April, 2007 for Defendant No.2s approval. Plaintiff was communicated that Defendant would get the draft approved from their lawyers. Defendant No. 2 however, failed and neglected to take steps to approve the same. The Plaintiff again reminded the Defendant to do the same in May, 2007 and thereafter in August, 2007. Plaintiff submitted that thereafter Plaintiff found a change in the attitude in Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 did not enter into any further correspondence. So, Plaintiff had serious apprehension that on account of boom in real estate sector and increase in property prices, Defendant No. 2 was attempting to resile from the contract and alienate the suit premises to a third party. Plaintiff had filed the present suit with the above relief.
4. The basic facts about entering of MoU between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 and non-signing of Lease Deed are not disputed. The question arises is, whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance of MoU in respect of a property situated in Haryana. Counsel for the Plaintiff relied on Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd v. Daulat and Anr. 2001(7) SCC 698 wherein the question of territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court was considered by the Supreme Court in respect of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell of a property situated in Indore, M.P. The question was considered in view of Clause 12 of Letters Patent of Bombay High Court which provided that suits
