Single judge quashed impugned order rejecting application for framing preliminary issue on jurisdiction under Section 9(A) CPC. Ordered trial court to frame issue and decide expeditiously within three months.
Impugned judgment quashed; preliminary issue framed; issue to be decided within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.612 OF 2009
Kirloskar Compuer Services Ltd
Mr.P.Kailasanathan,
Sr.Manager Finance...Petitioners
vs.
Angelo Lima Fernandes & Ors....Respondents
Ms Neeta Solanki i/b M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the
petitioners
Mr.D.A.Nalawade for respondent no.1
CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009
P.C.
1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (1st
and 2nd defendants) and the learned counsel for the
respondents (original plaintiffs). The petitioners made
an application invoking section 9(A)of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 in a suit filed by the respondents raising
an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court to
entertain the suit and for framing a preliminary issue.
By the impugned order dated 30th July 2007, the said
application has been rejected placing reliance on the
decision of Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Vs. Nigam
A. Mannan (2006 (4) Bombay Cases Reporter 217).In view
of the decision of the Division Bench in case of Madhuri
Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad (2008 1
Bombay Cases Reporter 709), the view taken in the case of
Solapur Social Urban Co-operative (supra) is no longer a
2
good law. It is not in dispute that the application for
temporary injunction made by the respondents is pending
and therefore the trial court will have to frame a
preliminary issue of jurisdiction as contemplated by
section 9(A) of the said Code and the same will have to
be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
2Hence, I pass the following order :
i)Impugned Judgment and Order is quashed and set
aside.ii)The trial court will frame a preliminary issue as
required by section 9 (A) of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908.
iii)The trial court will decide the issue
expetitiously and preferably within a period of
three months from today.
iv)All contentions on issue of jurisdiction are kept
open.
v)Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms with
no order as to costs.
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should frame a preliminary issue on jurisdiction despite a pending application for temporary injunction by respondents.
Whether the view in Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Vs. Nigam should be followed in light of Madhuri Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Vs. NigamDistinguished¶11
Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Vs. Nigam, 2006 (4) Bombay Cases Reporter 217
Madhuri Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra GaikwadRelied on¶13
Madhuri Prabhakar Patole Vs. Aruna Satishchandra Gaikwad, 2008 1 Bombay Cases Reporter 709
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kirloskar Computer Services Ltd
Angelo Lima Fernandes
A.S.Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court