This writ petition challenged the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on grounds of jurisdiction. The court held that statutory choice of forum is not available and rejected the petition.
Writ petition rejected. Question of misjoinder left for final stage.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2009
------------------------------------:----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Mr K.P.Anilkumar, for the petitioners.
CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ.
DATED: 16.02.2009
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners. The order in the matter filed
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is being
challenged on the ground of jurisdiction.
However, even though it was agreed between
the parties that the jurisdiction shall be
at Bombay, it is equally agreed between the
parties that the respondent-ICICI Bank has a
choice of its own jurisdiction. Apart from
the said choice given to the
respondent-Bank, the loan transaction had
taken place in Pune and all other
transactions had also taken place in Pune.
Therefore, according to the Rules, the Pune
Court has jurisdiction over it. When the
Court is having jurisdiction over the matter
and the statutory Tribunal, which is
constituted for that area, has been
approached by the respondent-Bank, it will
be inappropriate to contend that the Bombay
Court has jurisdiction. These are all
statutory courts and they have statutory
powers under the areas of their
jurisdiction. Therefore, such courts are
available. The choice of the parties to
select forum and jurisdiction is not
available to the parties. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is rejected. The question of
misjoinder of the parties can be considered
at the final stage as observed by the DRT
and DRAT. The point which has been kept
open need not be considered by us. The writ
petition is rejected.
(D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Bombay Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter when the loan transaction took place in Pune and the DRT approached for that area is Pune.
Whether the choice of parties to select forum and jurisdiction is available to them.
Whether the question of misjoinder of parties requires consideration by this court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Respondent-ICICI Bank
S.B.Mhase
D.B.Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court