Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6008
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J
ING VYSYA BANK LTD – Appellant
Versus
ALL INDIA ING VYSYA BANK EMPLOYEE'S UNION AND ANR – Respondent
FA 513 / 2013
Adv. P. J. Thorat i/b P. B. Gujar for the Appellant. None for the Respondents.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear suits unless expressly barred, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction requires proper procedural adherence.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 9 and 9A - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(k) - Appeal against dismissal of suit for permanent injunction as not maintainable - The Civil Court held that the dispute was between employer and employee and should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act - The court found that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was not excluded and the suit was maintainable. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a suit cannot be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without framing a preliminary issue and that the appropriate course is to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction against bank employees' union from protesting near the Plaintiff's premises, fearing disruption of banking operations. The suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court on jurisdictional grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the dismissal was improper.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the proper procedure for addressing jurisdictional objections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not readily excluded and that dismissal without addressing jurisdictional issues is improper.
Result: Appeal allowed; the suit is restored to file.
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2011 dismissing the suit as not maintainable in the City Civil Court.
2. By order of this Court dated 16th June, 2014, the parties were put to notice that the Appeal may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The matter was called out in the morning session and was thereafter kept back in the second session. None appears for the Respondents though an appearance has been caused on behalf of the Respondents. I have therefore heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the Appeal is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.
3. The facts of the case are that S.C. Suit No. 539 of 2011 came to be filed by the Plaintiff seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants i.e. the bank employees union and the bank ofÏcers association from demonstrating or carrying out any meetings, gherao etc. or any other form of protest within a radius of 500 sq. mtrs of the Plaintiff’s premises including the Regional ofÏces and the branches/ofÏce premises within the area of Greater Mumbai. It was pleaded that on 30th November, 2010, the Defendants had issued a circular calling upon their members to hold demonstration at all important locations on 18th December, 2010 in support of their demands. The said circular was followed by another circular dated 14th December, 2010. Subsequently, demonstrations were held and in continuation of their aggressive tactics, the Defendants threatened to intensify the agitation and issued another circular dated 31st January, 2011 calling for an all India strike on 17th March, 2011. It was therefore apprehended that the Defendants would indulge in demonstrations and other form of protest at the Plaintiff’s place of work which will hamper the banking operations of the Plaintiff. Armed with these assertions, the suit for injunction came to be filed before the City Civil Court in the month of March, 2011.
4. The City Civil Court kept the matter for hearing the parties on the point of maintainability of the suit. After hearing the Advocate for the Plaintiff, the learned Judge held that the suit related to bank and its employees and such type of dispute cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. It was further held that specific forum is available for making a grievance about it and that the same should be agitated before the appropriate forum as per Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Judge held that the Civil Court cannot entertain such dispute and the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
5. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the Appellant.
6. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the stage at which the parties were heard was before the issuance of the summons and in event the Court was of view that the suit is not maintainable on ground of jurisdiction, the appropriate course was to return the suit for presentation before the proper forum. He submits that while holding that the suit is not maintainable, the learned Single Judge has assumed jurisdiction and passed an order of dismissal. He submits that upon an objection to jurisdiction, which in the present case has not been raised by the Defendants, a preliminary issue should have been framed under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter, upon determination of the said issue, the appropriate order should have been passed. He submits that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure by which the Court could have dismissed the suit as not maintainable. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the following decisions:
Chandra Prem Shah And Ors. vs. K. Raheja Universal Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. [2015 SCC OnLine Bom 2484].
Kripa Ram (deceased ) Thr. Legal Representatives And Ors. vs. Surendra De
