Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal

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

  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:46 AM
Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:45 AM
High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:44 AM
ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:42 AM
State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:41 AM
Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 9:39 AM
'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court