8.Before the first Appellate Court, the Plaintiffs’ case was, for
the purposes of the present Second Appeal, that the Trial Court did
not consider the plea of jurisdiction, and that an objection as to the
jurisdiction was not addressed. According to the Plaintiffs, the Trial
Court lacked jurisdiction to try either action, i.e., the Plaintiffs’ own
Suit as also the Defendants’ counter-claim. This was never a plea
taken before the Trial Court. It seems to have been taken for the first
time before the first Appellate Court. The plea was based on the
argument that both parties would be bound by the Rules and Bye-
laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which have the force of law
and which provide for an arbitral forum and procedure. This,
according to the Plaintiffs, in their First Appeal, would render the
Trial Court bereft of all jurisdiction to entertain both the Plaintiffs’
own Suit and the Defendants’ counter-claim. The first Appellate
Court noted that there were three other Civil Suits Nos. R.C.S. No.
302 of 2012, 307 of 2012 and 309 of 2012 pending between the
parties where similar disputes were involved; and, therefore, a
secondary plea was advanced before the first Appellate Court that
the counter-claim ought not to have been decided till those
previously instituted suits were disposed of. That argument, and the
other arguments advanced before the first Appellate Court are not
material today, as these are not the reasons canvassed by Mr. Jha in
