Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Jurisdiction of Immovable Property Predominates: Supreme Court Upholds Sehore Court’s Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the jurisdictional aspect of civil suits related to immovable property, particularly in cases involving specific performance of agreements. The court deliberated upon the applicability of Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in determining the competent court for a dispute over a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding land purchase.

M/S ACME Papers Ltd. Sought the transfer of a suit filed by M/S. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. For specific performance of an MoU from Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, to Calcutta, West Bengal. ACME Papers, unable to obtain approvals for selling the land, claimed the MoU stood terminated. In response, Chintaman Developers filed a suit in Sehore, while ACME filed a counter-suit in Calcutta, leading to the transfer petitions.

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the principles of jurisdiction under the CPC. The court noted, “jurisdiction for suits concerning immovable property is primarily determined by the location of the property as per Section 16, CPC.” It was clarified that the place of execution of the agreement or the residence of the parties is secondary, making Section 20 a residuary provision not applicable in this case.

Regarding the precedence of filing, the Court invoked Section 10, CPC, emphasizing the need to avoid multiple proceedings on similar issues. It was observed that the Sehore suit was filed earlier, thereby necessitating a stay on the Calcutta suit as per the principles laid down in ‘Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd.’

Decision: The Court dismissed Transfer Petition (C) No.2664 of 2023, maintaining the jurisdiction of the Sehore court. Concurrently, it allowed Transfer Petition (C) No.499 of 2024, transferring the Calcutta suit to Sehore for consolidated proceedings. The Court also provided the petitioner with the option to withdraw the transferred suit or file a counterclaim in Sehore.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

M/S ACME Papers Ltd. Vs M/S. Chintaman Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Latest Legal News