Code of Civil Procedure Section 15. Court in which suits to be instituted.
16. Suits to be instituted
where subject-matter situate.—Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed
by any law, suits—
(a) for the recovery of
immovable property with or without rent or profits,
(b) for the partition of
immovable property,
(c) for foreclosure, sale or
redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,
(d) or the determination of
any other right to or interest in immovable property,
(e) for compensation for
wrong to immovable property,
(f) for the recovery of
movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in
the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is
situate:
Provided that a suit to
obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held
by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely
obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in
the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually
and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Explanation.—In this section
“property” means property situate in 1[India].
Note 1: Subs. by Act 2 of
1951, s. 3 for “the States”
Part in Red is
original provisions from CPC reproduced here for reference.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.
(a) In Aligarh Muslim University v. Vinay Engineering Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710, the Supreme Court examined a case wherein the contract between the parties was executed at Aligarh; the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh; the contract provided that in the event of dispute, Aligarh Court alone would have the jurisdiction; the arbitrator was to be appointed at Aligarh and had to function at Aligarh. The Supreme Court held that the Court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction, because the respondent company was a Calcutta-based firm.
(b) In Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Bombay Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 577, the Supreme Court considered a case wherein a civil court at Bharatpur (Rajasthan) entertained a civil suit in respect of assignment of imported goods unloaded at Calcutta dock and the plaintiff’s representation to the Port Trust to waive the port charges had been refused. The Civil Court at Bharatpur entertained the suit and passed an ex parte ad-interim mandatory injunction directing the Port Trust to release the goods on payment of specified amount. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal of the Port Trust, but the Supreme Court held that as no cause of action, even partly, occurred at Bharatpur, the only appropriate court at Calcutta was competent to take cognizance of the action and held that the orders of the Civil Court at Bharatpur, having no jurisdiction, were void and the order of the High Court, refusing to interfere with the orders, was illegal.
(c) In H.V.
Jayaram v. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. of India Ltd., AIR 2000
SC 579, the Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a
court in respect of the offence under Section 113 (2) of the Indian Companies
Act, 1956. Taking note of Sections 113 and 207 of the said Act, the Apex Court
held that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates
within the stipulated period would arise only at a place where the registered
office of the company was situated as from that place the share certificates
could be posted and are usually posted.
Reference:
Please share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment