Dismissed

T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Ltd. and 5 Ors. v. Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2024CRP/50/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC challenging territorial jurisdiction. The court held that such applications rely solely on the plaint. It discharged the stay order and directed parties to appear before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The stay order dated 23.05.2023 was vacated and parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27.03.2024 to raise territorial jurisdiction as a suit issue.

T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Ltd. and 5 Ors. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010110122023

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP/50/2023

¶5

T.K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LTD. AND 5 ORS.

¶6

A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT MODEL VILLAGE, P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN, DIST.- PAPUMPARE, PI- 791110, ARUNACHAL PRADESH EMAIL.ID- [email protected], MOB. NO- 9436041370

¶7

2: RATU TECHI MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PETITIONER NO. 1 R/O- MODEL VILLAGE P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN DIST.- PAPUMPARE PIN- 791110 ARUNACHAL PRADESH EMAIL. ID- [email protected] MOB. NO. 9436041370

¶8

3: TECHI TARA DIRECTOR OF PETITIONER NO. 1 R/O- MODEL VILLAGE P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN DIST.- PAPUMPARE PIN- 791110 ARUNACHAL PRADESH EMAIL. ID- [email protected] MOB. NO. 8413833552

¶9

4: (MRS) TECHI JULLY DIRECTOR OF PETITIONER NO. 1 R/O- MODEL VILLAGE P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN DIST.- PAPUMPARE PIN- 791110 ARUNACHAL PRADESH EMAIL. ID- [email protected] MOB. NO. 9436041370

¶10

5: PRADIP KUMAR ROY VICE PRESIDENT OF PETITIONER NO. 1

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

R/O- FLAT NO. 204 BLOCK-A3 GAMES VILLAGE BELTOLA P.S. BASISTHA PIN- 791110 EMAIL. ID- [email protected] MOB. NO. 8259020300

¶13

6: KISHORE KUMAR SENAPATI CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF PETITIONER NO. 1 R/O- MODEL VILLAGE P.O. AND P.S. NAHARLAGUN DIST.- PAPUMPARE PIN- 791110 ARUNACHAL PRADESH EMAIL. ID- [email protected] MOB. NO. 779942588

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

TECHCON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS LOCAL PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT ASSAM TRUNK ROAD, TOKOBARI, OPP. MAHAVIR BHAWAN, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781001, AND ITS REGD. OFFICE AT P-27, PRINCEP STREET, 2ND FLOOR, P.S. BOWBAZAR, KOLKATA- 700072 HAVING EMAIL ID- [email protected], MOB. NO- 9831089488

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Mozumdar, Sr. Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. O. P. Bhati, Advocate

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 05.03.2024

¶21

The instant proceedings has been filed challenging the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

Guwahati whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) was rejected.

¶24

This Court has duly perused the application which has been filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code and primarily, a perusal of the said application shows that the basic ground which was taken is that the Court before whom the suit was filed did not have the territorial jurisdiction. The question of territorial jurisdiction in the opinion of this Court cannot be decided in a proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code inasmuch the same may require going into evidence and more particularly in a case like the present one where it has been categorically shown in the plaint that the defendants are either residents or have the principal place of business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Guwahati. Taking into account that the scope of a proceedings for rejection of a plaint is solely to be decided on a perusal of the contents of the plaint and nothing else, in the opinion of this Court, in the present facts, the application for rejection of plaint was totally misconceived.

¶25

It is also well settled principle of law that when an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is taken, the only document which requires to be looked into is the plaint and as to whether from the said plaint it discloses a cause of action or for the matter, whether from a perusal of the plaint, the plaint appears to be barred by provisions of law. Under such circumstances, this Court having perused the impugned order dated 09.05.2023 finds no illegality or an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order for which it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code or for that matter, under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶26

The stay order dated 23.05.2023 in the instant proceedings stands vacated

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

and taking into account that the parties are duly represented before this Court, this Court directs both the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 27.03.2024.

¶29

Before parting with the records, this Court however finds it relevant to observe that if the Petitioners herein who are the defendants in the suit wishes to raise the question of territorial jurisdiction, the same can be very well framed as an issue in the suit or for that matter, a preliminary issue, if no facts are disputed. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the order dated 09.05.2023 rejecting the application for rejection of plaint is an order which would be solely confined to an adjudication of a proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the findings thereof shall not therefore influence the learned Trial Court while deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction, if so raised in the suit.

¶30

With above observations and directions, the instant proceedings stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Ltd. and 5 Ors. v. Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Engineering Consortium Private Ltd. and 5 Ors. v. Techcon Infrastructure Pvt. 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

Ramesh Roy and 2G Ors. Vs Raghunath Gowala and 3 Ors.

Asmot Paramanik @ Asmat Ali Paramanik Vs Abdul Baten and Ors.

Gojendra Nath Rajkhowa and Anr. Vs Smti. Sura Prova Boruah and Anr.

Amala Barman Vs Narayan Barman

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. Vs Ikram Hussain and Ors.

On the Death of Shri Puran Nath His Legal Heirs Smti Saiba Devi and Ors. Vs Ikram Hussain and Ors.