"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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.

Similar News