Partly allowed

Ishan Deshmukh Alias Prasad Asamtrap Kulkarnis/O.Late Shriram Dattatraya Phadke, and Anr. v. M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2012APP/383/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an appeal challenging an order directing a chamber summons regarding territorial jurisdiction to be heard along with the suit. Set aside the order, directing the trial judge to decide jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Section 9A CPC, while disposing of an uncontested appeal regarding a notice of motion.

What did the court decide?

The order directing the Chamber Summons to be heard along with the suit was set aside; the trial court was directed to hear and decide the Chamber Summons on its own merits as a preliminary issue.

Ishan Deshmukh Alias Prasad Asamtrap… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

Appl383.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL NO.383 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.195 OF 2012

¶8

¶9

SUIT NO.3119 OF 2011

¶10

Ishaan Deshmukh alias Prasad Kulkarni & Anr.

¶11

...Appellant

¶12

v/s.

¶13

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

WITH

¶16

APPEAL NO.386 OF 2012

¶17

IN NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.1247 OF 2012 IN

¶18

SUIT NO.3119 OF 2011

¶19

Ishaan Deshmukh alias Prasad Kulkarni & Anr. ...Appellant

¶20

v/s.

¶21

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. ...Respondent

¶22

Mr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Chandana Salgaonkar for Appellant.

¶23

Mr.Arzan Balsara with Vijaylaxmi Kulkarni i/b Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for Respondent.

¶24

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 24 August 2012.

¶25

P.C.

¶26

These appeals are directed against following order dated 16 April 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court:

¶27

“Chamber Summons and Notice of Motion to be heard a/w suit.”

1 Of 3

kambli

Appl383.12

As far as chamber summons is concerned, Chamber Summons No.195 of 2012 was taken out by the appellant/defendant raising a preliminary objection for the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court to try and decide the suit. It also contained a prayer for revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff dated 20 December 2011 on the ground that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction. In the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, the appellant/defendant specifically relied upon the provisions of Section 9A read with Order 7 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. Section 9A reads as under:-

¶33

"9A. Where at the hearing of application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken such issue to be decided by the court as a preliminary issue:

¶34

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this code or any other law for the time being in force, if at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, on objection to jurisdiction of the court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit the court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting for setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit.

¶35

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), at the hearing of any such application the court may grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending determination by it of the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction".

2 Of 3

kambli

Appl383.12

It is obvious that in view of the above statutory provision, the learned trial Judge was required to decide the preliminary issue about jurisdiction of the trial Court. The impugned order 16 April 2012 directing that the chamber summons be heard along with suit is , therefore, set aside. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge shall hear and decide the chamber summons on its own merits.

¶41

As far as notice of motion is concerned, Notice of Motion (l) No.1247 of 2012 has been filed for certain interim reliefs. As far as the said notice of motion is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant states that he does not press Appeal No.386 of 2012. Accordingly that part of the impugned order dated 16 April 2012 whereby the notice of motion is ordered to be heard along with suit is not disturbed.

¶42

Appeal No.383 of 2012 is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Appeal No.386 of 2012 is disposed of as not pressed.

¶43

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶45

3 Of 3

Ishan Deshmukh Alias Prasad Asamtrap Kulkarnis/O.Late Shriram Dattatraya Phadke, and Anr. v. M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishan Deshmukh Alias Prasad Asamtrap Kulkarnis/O.Late Shriram Dattatraya Phadke, and Anr. v. M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishwar Vajid Mirza Vs the Central Board of Movie Certificaiton and Anr.

Jsw Energy Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mahesh Ramachandra Ghone Vs the Telecom District Manager - M/S. BSNL , Sindhudurg

Leela Gajanan Raote and Ors. Vs Krishnakumar S.Raote and Anr.

Sou. Janabai Babu Kunakekar Vs Shri. Dattatraya Bhairu Chechar and Ors.

Somnath Vithoba Dabade Vs Ganesh Popat Patil and Ors.